Q. For Small Government Adherents

[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?

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.

No one is proposing to eliminate those functions.
What benefit does the Raisin Board confer?

 

[The Rabbi]

- 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.

He made it up. I predict a dodge, a deflection, or an attack.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

 

[RandallFlagg]

- 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.

Again - an estimated 50 trillion dollars simply flushed down the toilet with little to nothing to show for it. And on and on we go.

 

[danielpalos]

- 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.

Yes, that is the problem with the cognitively dissonant Right and their version of supply side economics which merely bails out the wealthiest and then trickles down.

 

[hortysir]

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

Taking money by force from the people who earned it to give to people who didn't earn it doesn't promote the welfare of either.

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

Great societies take care of their own

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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.

- They investigate the papers, conversations, and hearings that led up to the laws, among other things.

The Great Society was not a Johnson speech, but a program which had proponents, who had theories and objectives.

 

[danielpalos]

- 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.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

Taking money by force from the people who earned it to give to people who didn't earn it doesn't promote the welfare of either.

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

Great societies take care of their own

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

 

[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.

Yes, that is the problem with the cognitively dissonant Right and their version of supply side economics which merely bails out the wealthiest and then trickles down.

You dont know supply side economics from your asshole. Just admit it.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

- They investigate the papers, conversations, and hearings that led up to the laws, among other things.

The Great Society was not a Johnson speech, but a program which had proponents, who had theories and objectives.

Dodge. Did I call it or what?

 

[Pksimon2007]

Taking money by force from the people who earned it to give to people who didn't earn it doesn't promote the welfare of either.

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

Great societies take care of their own

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

 

[danielpalos]

- 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

here is a simpler version; simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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.

- They investigate the papers, conversations, and hearings that led up to the laws, among other things.

The Great Society was not a Johnson speech, but a program which had proponents, who had theories and objectives.

Dodge. Did I call it or what?

- Yeah. You called it because you did it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

 

[hortysir]

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

- Why?

Do you mean,"why don't I want my government tending to my every whim?"?
Because that's now how we were created

 

[Pksimon2007]

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

here is a simpler version; simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

- I'm not sure how that's a "response" to anything I said, but feel to explain, if you think it is.

I suspect it's just knee-jerk "I have to post something or be irrelevant".

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.