Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Pksimon2007]

- 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.

- It's relevant until you quit using his arguments.

 

[Pksimon2007]

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.

- Get Jim Grant for me to debate, if you wish. I'd be happy to shred him.

 

[danielpalos]

- 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......

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

No kidding. My private insurance just jumped 15% this year and my co-pays jumped another 10%. Thanks Obarrycare!! Maybe I ought to change over to that crap? $7,000 deductibles might not be so bad?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

Johnson is the one who is the architect of the war on poverty. Can you quote him actually saying anything that would support your claims?

It's all absolutely baseless. Even if your claims were true, how would that make it "right-wing?" If anyone believes there is something wrong with the poor, it's the left. It believes that people in poverty can't make it on their own, not the right.

 

[RandallFlagg]

"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......

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

- Get Jim Grant for me to debate, if you wish. I'd be happy to shred him.

LOL!!! You probably had to Google him to find out who he is. Needless to say you've lost this one.

 

[bripat9643]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

 

[Pksimon2007]

"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......

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

- It's a waste of my time to cut through his emotion and cackling to try to figure out if he's even saying anything at all.

no hablo no dumbass

 

[The Rabbi]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

Government costs the benefits that private businesses would pay because they suck up profit through regulations and taxes.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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.

- Get Jim Grant for me to debate, if you wish. I'd be happy to shred him.

LOL!!! You probably had to Google him to find out who he is. Needless to say you've lost this one.

- I'm familiar with Grant's work, particularly on the "forgotten depression".

As I said, I'd be happy to debate him on that subject or this one.

If your command of his material is sufficient for you to articulate his arguments, then feel free to do so, and we can debate it here and now.

 

[RandallFlagg]

- 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.

Johnson is the one who is the architect of the war on poverty. Can you quote him actually saying anything that would support your claims?

It's all absolutely baseless. Even if your claims were true, how would that make it "right-wing?" If anyone believes there is something wrong with the poor, it's the left. It believes that people in poverty can't make it on their own, not the right.

I distinctly recall Johnson - IMMEDIATELY after the death of JFK stating that this was his "priority" - and that was (like Obama) his sole accomplishment. He could (probably) have run again and won - but for some strange reason - he stepped aside. Always thought that was a strange thing......

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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.

Johnson is the one who is the architect of the war on poverty. Can you quote him actually saying anything that would support your claims?

It's all absolutely baseless. Even if your claims were true, how would that make it "right-wing?" If anyone believes there is something wrong with the poor, it's the left. It believes that people in poverty can't make it on their own, not the right.

- Can I quote Johnson?

I can provide you with some studies, if you'd like.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

 

[Misty]

We waste billions giving money to corrupt foreign governments who use the money to line their pockets instead of helping their people.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

- Get Jim Grant for me to debate, if you wish. I'd be happy to shred him.

LOL!!! You probably had to Google him to find out who he is. Needless to say you've lost this one.

- I'm familiar with Grant's work, particularly on the "forgotten depression".

As I said, I'd be happy to debate him on that subject or this one.

If your command of his material is sufficient for you to articulate his arguments, then feel free to do so, and we can debate it here and now.

He made the case that the more gov't intervenes, the worse the recovery. It has certainly been the case this last time, which saw unprecedented intervention followed by the most tepid recovery on record.
Do you have evidence to dispute any of that?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Johnson is the one who is the architect of the war on poverty. Can you quote him actually saying anything that would support your claims?

It's all absolutely baseless. Even if your claims were true, how would that make it "right-wing?" If anyone believes there is something wrong with the poor, it's the left. It believes that people in poverty can't make it on their own, not the right.

- Can I quote Johnson?

I can provide you with some studies, if you'd like.

What do studies have to do with the motivations of the politicians who passed it?

If you can't quote Johnson and the Democrats saying what you claim, you got nothing. Just admit you made it up.

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

Government costs the benefits that private businesses would pay because they suck up profit through regulations and taxes.

- If you run a business and had to create a system of laws and police, as well as roads, currency exchange, as well as educating workers at your own expense, those would all be significant costs.

Your assumption is that we get nothing in exchange.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Johnson is the one who is the architect of the war on poverty. Can you quote him actually saying anything that would support your claims?

It's all absolutely baseless. Even if your claims were true, how would that make it "right-wing?" If anyone believes there is something wrong with the poor, it's the left. It believes that people in poverty can't make it on their own, not the right.

- Can I quote Johnson?

I can provide you with some studies, if you'd like.

No, I want to see quotations from Johnson that support your contention he believed that. Because every measure of dysfuncton has increased since the Great Society was enacted.