Q. For Small Government Adherents

"The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power."

That's absolute horseshit. The Weimar government ran practically everything. It had a social insurance program, a medical insurance program, numerous other social programs and regulated business to the teeth.

- Ah, a Glenn Beck listener.

None of that is actually true. The Weimar Republic inherited some of the Kaiser's existing programs, but they were quite modest, and were neglected during the Weimar regime for lack of money.

Apparently you've never read "The Road to Serfdom" were Frederick von Hayek detailed all the Weimar Republic's interventions into the economy. Try it sometime and learn something.

You probably ought to subject your (or Glenn's) musings to the test of common sense.

The Weimar Republic was established by the Allies as an allied proxy to prevent the re-emergence of German power after WWI.

The Weimar Republic was not established by the allies. Do you know anything that's actually true?


Following the First World War, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919, a national assembly was convened in Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, then adopted on 11 August of that same year.

Does it make sense to you that the Allies would establish such a proxy with broad, extensive powers to create massive government programs, or would they severely restrict what it could do in order to achieve the twin goals of preventing another war and extracting war reparations?

Since the allies had nothing to do with it, what they would want is totally irrelevant.

After you ask yourself that question, run to the library and read real history, and quit listening to Beck and taking stupid internet memes as gospel.

Please show us a reference that says the allies created the Weimar Republic.

- The Weimar Republic was established to negotiate with the Allies. The Allies, particularly Wilson, refused to negotiate with anyone but the social democrats. Perhaps "established" was too strong a word. It was selected from among several contenders to establish a German government by the allies as the only government with which it would negotiate.

The Weimar Republic

You're kidding, some blog is your proof?

This is what it says:

The Weimar Republic was founded at the end of World War I, with Germany in a state of near-anarchy. The Social Democratic Party was the leading party in the creation of the Weimar Republic. It was the only party with sufficient credibility and acceptance by Wilson to negotiate an armistice agreement. It was, however, not in the mainstream of German politics since it primarily represented the working class.

In other words, it was already the accepted government of Germany before the negotiations. It was "selected" because it was the only institution that had any credibility as a government, not for the reasons you cite.

The bottom line: your claim is a complete lie.


If I'm not mistaken - and I an not - The people of the Weimar Republic VOTED Hitler into power. The Constitution of the Weimar Republic was in full force when Adolph Hitler took over. It did nothing to stop THAT monster. And the result? Old men and women sitting on the streets stating "But we didn't know".........

- You're partly mistaken.

The people "voted" into power after he took power, in a Nazi propaganda move to lend legitimacy to their earlier seizure of power.

They believed that most people weren't bright enough to bother to put things in temporal order to determine cause and effect, and they were right.
 
Again, LBJ started his "Great Society" nonsense to "end poverty in our lifetime". 50 Trillion dollars later........
Our defense budget has not ended war in our time


My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?
 
Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective


Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed
When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

- During downturns, charitable giving falls, and charities go broke. Those who lose jobs need the donations, and those who still have jobs stop giving in order to assure their own ability to survive.

This is not rocket science.
You understand that is not an answer to my question, right?
How many charities went broke in the last downturn?

That wasn't the question you asked.

Are you asking it now, and if so, why?

Do you disagree in some way with my statement that charitable giving falls during downturns?
 
Our defense budget has not ended war in our time


My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?


- So did I.

"What would I need to study?"

- This really explains a lot about you.
 
Our defense budget has not ended war in our time


My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?


Sorry bud...."Living through it" doesn't count. You have to "study" it from books written by faculty lounge communists to get the "real" story...... :2up:
 
Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

We have numerous national charities, and we would have lot more if people weren't being taxed into poverty to support our vast welfare state.

- Charitable giving falls during a downturn, exactly when demands on charity are the greatest.

That's WHY we use government. Government can act countercyclically, which is what we need.

Government interference in the economy only makes recessions longer and deeper. In fact, government causes the vast majority of recession/depressions.

- That's absolutely untrue, but if you feel you have an argument, make it.

The latest recession is a classic example. It was totally the creation of government, and it was far longer and deeper than any recession we've had since the Great Depression, which is another great example.
 
- The Weimar Republic was established to negotiate with the Allies. The Allies, particularly Wilson, refused to negotiate with anyone but the social democrats. Perhaps "established" was too strong a word. It was selected from among several contenders to establish a German government by the allies as the only government with which it would negotiate.

The Weimar Republic

You're kidding, some blog is your proof?

This is what it says:

The Weimar Republic was founded at the end of World War I, with Germany in a state of near-anarchy. The Social Democratic Party was the leading party in the creation of the Weimar Republic. It was the only party with sufficient credibility and acceptance by Wilson to negotiate an armistice agreement. It was, however, not in the mainstream of German politics since it primarily represented the working class.

In other words, it was already the accepted government of Germany before the negotiations. It was "selected" because it was the only institution that had any credibility as a government, not for the reasons you cite.

The bottom line: your claim is a complete lie.

- You quoted wikipedia, cowboy. Do you know how many wikipedia pages I contribute to?

You could be quoting my words without knowing it, lol - bashing me here, but claiming I'm a godlike source on some other subject.

The blog is academic, and it does not conflict with the wikipedia page. It fills in gaps which the wikipedia article does not address.

Neither source supports your claim. The allies did not create the Weimar government. They simply chose to negotiate with it because it was the most credible institution at the time.

- Which had the effect of putting it in power.

derp

Hmmmm, nope, and you said the allies created the Weimer republic giving it certain powers. It did nothing of the sort.


- Now you're just arguing to argue. My point is correct, and your premise makes no sense.

Why would the Allies pick a militant, aggressive government to negotiate with, as Glenn Beck believes?
 
My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?


- So did I.

"What would I need to study?"

- This really explains a lot about you.

Tell us what you know that I don't.
 
You're kidding, some blog is your proof?

This is what it says:

The Weimar Republic was founded at the end of World War I, with Germany in a state of near-anarchy. The Social Democratic Party was the leading party in the creation of the Weimar Republic. It was the only party with sufficient credibility and acceptance by Wilson to negotiate an armistice agreement. It was, however, not in the mainstream of German politics since it primarily represented the working class.

In other words, it was already the accepted government of Germany before the negotiations. It was "selected" because it was the only institution that had any credibility as a government, not for the reasons you cite.

The bottom line: your claim is a complete lie.

- You quoted wikipedia, cowboy. Do you know how many wikipedia pages I contribute to?

You could be quoting my words without knowing it, lol - bashing me here, but claiming I'm a godlike source on some other subject.

The blog is academic, and it does not conflict with the wikipedia page. It fills in gaps which the wikipedia article does not address.

Neither source supports your claim. The allies did not create the Weimar government. They simply chose to negotiate with it because it was the most credible institution at the time.

- Which had the effect of putting it in power.

derp

Hmmmm, nope, and you said the allies created the Weimer republic giving it certain powers. It did nothing of the sort.


- Now you're just arguing to argue. My point is correct, and your premise makes no sense.

Why would the Allies pick a militant, aggressive government to negotiate with, as Glenn Beck believes?

Whatever Glenn Beck believes isn't relevant to this thread.
 
The main thing I would cut is foreign aid. Keep the money for Americans.
 
If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

We have numerous national charities, and we would have lot more if people weren't being taxed into poverty to support our vast welfare state.

- Charitable giving falls during a downturn, exactly when demands on charity are the greatest.

That's WHY we use government. Government can act countercyclically, which is what we need.

Government interference in the economy only makes recessions longer and deeper. In fact, government causes the vast majority of recession/depressions.

- That's absolutely untrue, but if you feel you have an argument, make it.

The latest recession is a classic example. It was totally the creation of government, and it was far longer and deeper than any recession we've had since the Great Depression, which is another great example.

- The latest recession was in no way a creation of government - if anything, government failed to use its power to prevent it.

It was a creation of private markets, but that requires a level of knowledge about economics and markets which you cannot get from Glenn Beck.

You are lucky that I am here and willing to teach you.

The latest recession did not begin with a mortgage crisis - that was an effect. It was not the result of a mortgage bubble. The mortgage bubble was the result of the private sector demand for a specific type of securities, which was really (and ironically) related to a shortage of available Treasuries, which was (not ironically) related to our trade deficit.

These are linkages you don't understand.
 
Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.
 
Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

We have numerous national charities, and we would have lot more if people weren't being taxed into poverty to support our vast welfare state.

- Charitable giving falls during a downturn, exactly when demands on charity are the greatest.

That's WHY we use government. Government can act countercyclically, which is what we need.

Government interference in the economy only makes recessions longer and deeper. In fact, government causes the vast majority of recession/depressions.


I can't help but wonder how many of these rubes were around in '73 when the oil crisis hit? You know, when tankers were sitting off the coast of Houston and Galveston while we went without gas for nearly 6 weeks? Nixon? Nixon? Nixon?

Those were great times!!! I remember fondly the fist fights and the screaming and yelling.....

- I was. The difference between you and me is that I got an education and never became a partisan hack with the inability to think and reason critically.
 
If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

We have numerous national charities, and we would have lot more if people weren't being taxed into poverty to support our vast welfare state.

- Charitable giving falls during a downturn, exactly when demands on charity are the greatest.

That's WHY we use government. Government can act countercyclically, which is what we need.

Government interference in the economy only makes recessions longer and deeper. In fact, government causes the vast majority of recession/depressions.

- That's absolutely untrue, but if you feel you have an argument, make it.

The latest recession is a classic example. It was totally the creation of government, and it was far longer and deeper than any recession we've had since the Great Depression, which is another great example.

Interesting point. Our current Tyrant loves to equate the latest recession as the "worst since the Great Depression". I can't help but wonder if that clown has ever read "The Grapes Of Wrath"? My Mother and Father lived through that time. Tens of thousands literally starved to death, suicides have never been higher.

So what do he and George Bush do? They bail out banks. 680 Billion dollars merely went *poof* and those with 401Ks saw their life change overnight. As William Devaine says " Did anyone replace what you lost in your 401K"?

People no longer save. Why? less than 1% return on your money - near zero interest rates, while banks continue to post record profits. Well, what the hell, at least SOMEONE is making out like a bandit. Thanks government!!!
 
My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?


Sorry bud...."Living through it" doesn't count. You have to "study" it from books written by faculty lounge communists to get the "real" story...... :2up:

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.
 
The US used to have one of the best education systems in the world until voucher programs and charter schools became all the rage. Now the public education system is being starved for funds. The US is currently ranked 14th.

So, you would rather people not have a choice on where they school their children? You can't dictate that, and government can't dictate that. Common Core isn't going to help matters. You have parents and students revolting against that failure of a curriculum. Hey, I'm sorry you don't like that.
 
- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?


- So did I.

"What would I need to study?"

- This really explains a lot about you.

Tell us what you know that I don't.

- I just did. The war on poverty was based on the premise that the poor were poor because of some sort of inferiority - that there were "structural" issues.

That is, they had no family values, did not stay married, used drugs, etc: these are the same arguments the right makes today.

So the war on poverty was designed to shepherd people into housing where they could be taught to wash themselves and get married.

It never occurred to the right that the poor were poor because they had no money, and the key to having money is having jobs.
 
Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

We have numerous national charities, and we would have lot more if people weren't being taxed into poverty to support our vast welfare state.

- Charitable giving falls during a downturn, exactly when demands on charity are the greatest.

That's WHY we use government. Government can act countercyclically, which is what we need.

Government interference in the economy only makes recessions longer and deeper. In fact, government causes the vast majority of recession/depressions.

- That's absolutely untrue, but if you feel you have an argument, make it.
It is absolutely true. Jim Grant's book The Trouble with Prosperity lays out the case very well.
 
- Polio has been around since the beginning of man.

Oddly, with vaccinations, it was eradicated. Loons want to bring it back, of course, by claiming that vaccinations are tyranny.

The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction.

It assumed that poverty was caused because the poor were somehow deficient, and needed to be fixed.

Yes, your claims about poverty today are exactly the same, and fit Einstein's maxim to a tee.

"The Great Society was a fundamentally right-wing approach to poverty reduction."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted in this forum.

We can move that to the top of your parade of lies.

- In other words, you've got nothing, and have never studied the Great Society.

I lived through it, numskull. What would I need to study?


- So did I.

"What would I need to study?"

- This really explains a lot about you.

Tell us what you know that I don't.


Well, "he" got an education. That proves it. Funny....so did I. Granted a lowly BA in communications and Poli Sci - but My Wife did get her MS in Nursing.....does that count??? :coffee:
 

Forum List

Back
Top