Food Stamps are Stimulus

[ArlJim78]

This is the new thinking, food stamps generate jobs and stimulate the economy because of a "multiplier" effect.
according to the agriculture minister. with food stamps breaking all records, where is the growth? why does unemployment remain high? and if it is such a wonderful thing why don't we just triple the number of food stamps and really start an economic boom?

1HjTX0wdMW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HjTX0wdMW4&feature=player_embedded

[newtothegame]

WOW...great post JIm....
So, although true that when people recieve things such as food stamps, a benefit of those food stamps is money being spent into the economy which creates jobs.
The problem they are leaving out is two fold.....
1. that money is paid for by TAX payers and the people recieving food stamps (needed or not) are doing nothing to earn those dollars.
2. It creates a dependency on those programs.
You need look no further then the ever increasing people on food stamps to see the dependency being created! .

[Tom]

Apparently, this guy has also been smoking some other agricultural products.

[JustRalph]

I heard this on the news/radio tonight. He forgets to mention that 1.84 is a flawed number because you took a dollar of it of some other tax payees hand and they can no longer spend it. Using his own logic, that means a .16 cent loss on every food stamp dollar spent. Not counting admin costs etc.

You are just taking money from the actual person who earned It and giving to someone else and charging a huge takeout to do it.......where have I heard that before?

[ElKabong]

What else did we expect from an Administration that answered the question of 'Obama has never run a business, why would anyone think he can run a country and help an ailing economy', the answer Obama gave was "Hey my campaign IS a real big business".

These guys haven't a clue, never did

[Robert Goren]

What else did we expect from an Administration that answered the question of 'Obama has never run a business, why would anyone think he can run a country and help an ailing economy', the answer Obama gave was "Hey my campaign IS a real big business".

These guys haven't a clue, never didWhat kind of shape was the economy in when the last couple of businessmen presidents left office? A clue the last two businessmen presidents ran an oil company and a peanut warehouse. To find another one you would have to go back in to the 1800s. Coservative Icon Reagan was a union president for a while, so maybe you might want to count him, but I don't.

[mostpost]

What kind of shape was the economy in when the last couple of businessmen presidents left office? A clue the last two businessmen presidents ran an oil company and a peanut warehouse. To find another one you would have to go back in to the 1800s. Coservative Icon Reagan was a union president for a while, so maybe you might want to count him, but I don't.

This whole idea that the Government should be run like a business is just wrong.
A business has the goal of making a profit. How many times have we seen the conservatives here worshiping at that altar? A business is not concerned with the welfare of its employees except in so far as it is required to be concerned.

The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves. Government is not there to make a profit.

If a businessman finds that a product line or a service is unprofitable he drops that line or service. The government can not stop providing airport security because it is unprofitable. It can't suspend Social Security because it may become unprofitable in fifty years.

[ArlJim78]

forget about a profit, we just need to run the government like a business with the goal to break even. the point is that you need some kind of break on the system or else you end up with runaway government which thinks money falls from the sky and there are no consequences for excessive spending. right now there is nothing in place at the federal level which instills the necessary discipline and forces them to be responsible. Good thing states aren't allowed to run like that or we'd already be sunk.

[Johnny V]

The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves.

Do you honestly believe that that is the real purpose of our government??

[GaryG]

The goal of this socialist admin is to tax people like us to the absolute max in order to fund cradle-to-the-grave nanny care. That would include a Cadillac every other year and money for crack.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I heard this on the news/radio tonight. He forgets to mention that 1.84 is a flawed number because you took a dollar of it of some other tax payees hand and they can no longer spend it. Using his own logic, that means a .16 cent loss on every food stamp dollar spent. Not counting admin costs etc.

You are just taking money from the actual person who earned It and giving to someone else and charging a huge takeout to do it.......where have I heard that before?

They borrowed the dollar, you mean.

[Tom]

mosite, you know nothing about businesses. OR government.

[OntheRail]

The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves. Government is not there to make a profit.


It apparent where your bread is buttered. Federal Government was to Protect our Boarders and Negotiate Foreign Treaties. Not micro manage the common mans day to day life.

B&B have got to go... Barack & Bernanke

[boxcar]

This whole idea that the Government should be run like a business is just wrong.
A business has the goal of making a profit.

Have you never heard of non-profit organizations? :rolleyes:

How many times have we seen the conservatives here worshiping at that altar? A business is not concerned with the welfare of its employees except in so far as it is required to be concerned.

To what point should any business be concerned? Give me 10 areas where you believe businesses have failed its employees, generally.

The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves. Government is not there to make a profit.

Regardless, if any business did not subscribe to sound and proven business policies and put them into practice daily, you could kiss the business and its employees good-bye in no time flat. The problem with government is that it has no incentive to spend money wisely because they didn't earn it or generate the revenue. Government doesn't generate wealth and never will. It confiscates wealth from the private sector. The private sector is the host to blood-sucking leeches. Never forget this.

If a businessman finds that a product line or a service is unprofitable he drops that line or service. The government can not stop providing airport security because it is unprofitable. It can't suspend Social Security because it may become unprofitable in fifty years.

But a business-minded government could find ways to cut costs to save taxpayers money.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Do you honestly believe that that is the real purpose of our government??

Yeah, he does. He believes the state is a benign, benevolent entity, worthy to be worshiped and obeyed by all. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Let's put EVERYONE on food stamps and welfare and watch this economy TAKE OFF!


Clue for mostie - I provide my own food, housing, health care and clothing. I guess we don't need government to do that for us.

[Actor]

What kind of shape was the economy in when the last couple of businessmen presidents left office? A clue the last two businessmen presidents ran an oil company and a peanut warehouse. To find another one you would have to go back in to the 1800s. Coservative Icon Reagan was a union president for a while, so maybe you might want to count him, but I don't.Harry Truman ran a haberdashery before going into politics. The business failed so I guess you'd have to say he was a failed businessman.

[Actor]

Let's put EVERYONE on food stamps and welfare and watch this economy TAKE OFF!

That might work. Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax where people with no income would get money from the government. The Earned Income Credit on income tax is a step in that direction.

[boxcar]

That might work. Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax where people with no income would get money from the government. The Earned Income Credit on income tax is a step in that direction.

In that case, we shouldn't merely be tinkering around the edges of Negativity. Shouldn't we be going all-out Negative? I propose an Anarchy Party for 30 days. The purpose for the event would be to destroy property. Destroy businesses, steal merchandise, destroy homes, destroy infrastructure, etc. Tell me this wouldn't put Americans back on the super fast track to jobs! Just imagine all the new jobs that would be created overnight after this big event!

Boxcar

[rastajenk]

Seems like there was a Star Trek episode about that kind of destructive mayhem, and its supposed regenerative effects. :cool:

[Tom]

That might work. Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax where people with no income would get money from the government. The Earned Income Credit on income tax is a step in that direction.

Friedman is an idiot.
NO ONE gets money from the government.
ALL the money comes from people who have jobs and are getting screwed out of a portion of their earnings.

[dartman51]

Friedman is an idiot.
NO ONE gets money from the government.
ALL the money comes from people who have jobs and are getting screwed out of a portion of their earnings.

Ergo, re-distribution of wealth. :ThmbUp:

[riskman]

2. It creates a dependency on those programs.
You need look no further then the ever increasing people on food stamps to see the dependency being created! .

Why do you think there are more people on food stamps today? Would it have anything to do with the the rate of unemployment or the many who are retiring that had their private pension plans blown away by the recent antics of the mortgage debacle.
Believe me ,I am not a fan of many government subsidized programs but food is is a basic necessity especially for the young and elderly and for that matter anyone who is in need of help with food sustenance.

[ArlJim78]

the people on food stamps are eating steaks.
the people who are working are eating ramen noodles

[boxcar]

the people on food stamps are eating steaks.
the people who are working are eating ramen noodles

And many on food stamps trade their food for non-FS items such as tobacco, alcohol, condoms, drugs, sexual favors, etc., etc. The bartering system is making a big comeback. I suppose this, too, stimulates the economy. :lol:

Boxcar

[Actor]

the people on food stamps are eating steaks.
the people who are working are eating ramen noodles
What is your source for this statement? Link?

[Actor]

Friedman is an idiot.
To give the late Dr. Friedman his due, his proposal for a negative income tax came with the proviso that it replace all other forms of welfare. He believed that, as long as we are going to have welfare, a single welfare system (such as negative income tax) with a single qualifying factor (your AJI is less than X) would be more cost effective than the plethora of disparate systems we now have. In other words, he would fund the negative income tax from the savings from cancelling all other programs.

Of course a negative income tax would remove one incentive to find work (hunger) and replace it with another (a desire to live above a subsistence level). Friedman believed that the latter is already the dominant force, and that people who are satisfied with a subsistence level existence already have the means to get it from the government.

For what it's worth, Dr. Friedman also believed that the government should run a deficit to stimulate the economy, but this idea too came with a proviso: the interest on the debt should not exceed a certain percentage of the GDP. The size of the debt has already exceed what Dr. Friedman wanted, and I have no idea how he would propose we get back on track.


NO ONE gets money from the government.
ALL the money comes from people who have jobs and are getting screwed out of a portion of their earnings.
Get out your Economics 101 textbook. ALL money comes from the government. People who have jobs are paid by businesses who depend on money borrowed from banks. The banks, in turn, get their money from the Federal Reserve, part of the government. Businesses that are 100% privately capitalized are not numerous enough to alter this basic model, which can be extended to cover the global economy.

[ArlJim78]

What is your source for this statement? Link?
common sense and my own observations. do you think people getting food stamps are being frugal and buying hamburger helper and Spam? its a fact of life, when you hand money to someone with no strings attached they will generally blow the money on stuff that they wouldn't buy with their own money.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Friedman is an idiot.NO ONE gets money from the government.
ALL the money comes from people who have jobs and are getting screwed out of a portion of their earnings.

How much do you know about him? Maybe a lot, I'm just interested to know given your strong opinion of him.

[boxcar]

To give the late Dr. Friedman his due, his proposal for a negative income tax came with the proviso that it replace all other forms of welfare. He believed that, as long as we are going to have welfare, a single welfare system (such as negative income tax) with a single qualifying factor (your AJI is less than X) would be more cost effective than the plethora of disparate systems we now have. In other words, he would fund the negative income tax from the savings from cancelling all other programs.

Of course a negative income tax would remove one incentive to find work (hunger) and replace it with another (a desire to live above a subsistence level). Friedman believed that the latter is already the dominant force, and that people who are satisfied with a subsistence level existence already have the means to get it from the government.

For what it's worth, Dr. Friedman also believed that the government should run a deficit to stimulate the economy, but this idea too came with a proviso: the interest on the debt should not exceed a certain percentage of the GDP. The size of the debt has already exceed what Dr. Friedman wanted, and I have no idea how he would propose we get back on track.


Get out your Economics 101 textbook. ALL money comes from the government. People who have jobs are paid by businesses who depend on money borrowed from banks. The banks, in turn, get their money from the Federal Reserve, part of the government. Businesses that are 100% privately capitalized are not numerous enough to alter this basic model, which can be extended to cover the global economy.

Pray tell: From whence does the Federal Reserve get its money?

Boxcar

[Tom]

How much do you know about him? Maybe a lot, I'm just interested to know given your strong opinion of him.

Basing it on his ridiculous statement mentioned in an earlier post. All I need to know.

Much listening to Al Gore once.

[Actor]

Pray tell: From whence does the Federal Reserve get its money?

BoxcarI thought you knew. It prints it. :lol:

Actually that's not quite true. It prints currency (and mints coin), which is not money per se. Money is nothing more than entries in an accountant's ledger. Currency is a kind of check written on the government's account. The amount of currency in circulation is always less than the amount of money in circulation simply because not every transaction involves currency.

Money moves in cycles. I goes from the Fed Res to the banks to the people and then (eventually) back to the banks and to the Fed where it begins its next cycle. Part of the Fed's job is to manage the amount of money in circulation. It's a complex subject which takes a college course took to even begin to explain it fully. I aced the course but I do not claim to completely understand it.

[boxcar]

I thought you knew. It prints it. :lol:

Actually that's not quite true. It prints currency (and mints coin), which is not money per se. Money is nothing more than entries in an accountant's ledger. Currency is a kind of check written on the government's account. The amount of currency in circulation is always less than the amount of money in circulation simply because not every transaction involves currency.

Money moves in cycles. I goes from the Fed Res to the banks to the people and then (eventually) back to the banks and to the Fed where it begins its next cycle. Part of the Fed's job is to manage the amount of money in circulation. It's a complex subject which takes a college course took to even begin to explain it fully. I aced the course but I do not claim to completely understand it.

Okay...then Mr. Acer, aside from its ability to print money, does the Fed actually generate wealth? Does it create wealth through the sales of goods or services?

Boxcar

[Actor]

Okay...then Mr. Acer, aside from its ability to print money, does the Fed actually generate wealth? Does it create wealth through the sales of goods or services?

BoxcarThat depends on whether you regard the Fed's function as a necessary service. Gov. Perry's statements aside, I don't think either party wants to get rid of it.

[boxcar]

That depends on whether you regard the Fed's function as a necessary service. Gov. Perry's statements aside, I don't think either party wants to get rid of it.

Can't answer a simple question, can you? Even if you think they provide a "necessary service", do they sell it to generate/create wealth?

Boxcar

[riskman]

Pray tell: From whence does the Federal Reserve get its money?

Boxcar
From the link below:

"The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury. "
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/answerxml.cfm?selectedurl=/2006/0605.html

Since The Federal Reserve is buying U.S. Government Securities where did they the originally get the funding to purchase these securities? Were they originally funded by the U.S. Government which is taxpayer money? As you can see I did not take ECO 101.

[Actor]

Can't answer a simple question, can you? Even if you think they provide a "necessary service", do they sell it to generate/create wealth?

Boxcar
If you want a simple answer mine would be "I don't know and I don't care." I suppose the question could be argued either way. but it seems undeniable that the Fed facilitates the generation of wealth by other entities, at least as the system currently exists.

I have no agenda here. I was originally addressing Tom's statement that all money comes from people who have jobs, a position that seems overly simplistic to me. I make money from real estate and I suppose you could argue that's a job, but I don't regard it as such. I also have investments and I suppose you could argue that money comes from people who have jobs at the companies I invest in. Whatever.

Riskman's post seems an excellent answer to the question.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Basing it on his ridiculous statement mentioned in an earlier post. All I need to know.

Much listening to Al Gore once.

Trust me, Milton Freidman was nothing like listening to Al Gore....nothing. He was very pro free market and opposed government intervention into business affairs. He was supportive of earned income tax credits for the poor.

[boxcar]

From the link below:

"The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury. "
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/answerxml.cfm?selectedurl=/2006/0605.html

Since The Federal Reserve is buying U.S. Government Securities where did they the originally get the funding to purchase these securities? Were they originally funded by the U.S. Government which is taxpayer money? As you can see I did not take ECO 101.

Thank you! I knew this, but Mr. Acer apparently didn't. (He scores and "F" and you get the "A"!) And he was the one who basically said in post 30 that all money comes from the government. Well, if this is the case, then why do people pay taxes to the government?

The irrefutable fact remains that PEOPLE in the private sector generate wealth, not any government. Governments confiscate this wealth through taxation.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If you want a simple answer mine would be "I don't know and I don't care." I suppose the question could be argued either way. but it seems undeniable that the Fed facilitates the generation of wealth by other entities, at least as the system currently exists.

I have no agenda here. I was originally addressing Tom's statement that all money comes from people who have jobs, a position that seems overly simplistic to me. I make money from real estate and I suppose you could argue that's a job, but I don't regard it as such. I also have investments and I suppose you could argue that money comes from people who have jobs at the companies I invest in. Whatever.

Riskman's post seems an excellent answer to the question.

His answer was indeed. When you "aced" your course, who did you bribe? :rolleyes:

And since you think the private sector is so insignificant in terms of funding the government, please convince the government of this for me and have them suspend all taxation indefinitely! No government would have even the pot to pee in if it weren't for people in the private sector generating wealth to be taxed! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Actor]

His answer was indeed. When you "aced" your course, who did you bribe? :rolleyes:I didn't have to bribe anyone. The teacher graded on the curve and the rest of the class were idiots. :D To be fair to the rest of the class, I postponed taking this "required" class until my senior year -- the rest of the class were first semester freshman, which gave me something of an advantage on the curve. And it's been 40 years.

And since you think the private sector is so insignificant in terms of funding the government, please convince the government of this for me and have them suspend all taxation indefinitely! No government would have even the pot to pee in if it weren't for people in the private sector generating wealth to be taxed! :bang: :bang:

BoxcarI never said "the private sector is ... insignificant in terms of funding the government." Please point out where I said such a thing and I'll gladly either clarify my statement or retract it.

[BetHorses!]

What do you guys think about this..? Sick right


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/detriot/2m-michigan-lottery-winner-defends-food-stamps-172712202.html


A Michigan man who won $2 million in a state lottery game continues to collect food stamps 11 months after striking it rich.
And there's nothing the state can do about it, at least for now.
Leroy Fick, 59, of Auburn won $2 million in the state lottery TV show "Make Me Rich!" last June. But the state's Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps, Fick's attorney, John Wilson of Midland, said Tuesday.
Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don't count as income. As long as Fick's gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.
Food stamps are paid for through tax dollars and are meant to help support low-income families.
"If you're going to try to make me feel bad, you're not going to do it," Fick told WNEM-TV in Saginaw on Monday.
Wilson said Fick told the DHS officials he'd won $2 million but was told he could keep using the Bridge Card issued to him to buy groceries.
Fick could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Al Kimichik, director of the office of inspector general for DHS, said the department could not comment on individual cases but that it this week began the process of requesting a waiver from the federal government to close the lottery loophole. If it is granted, assets would be counted in determining food stamp eligibility.
Though the food stamp program is federal and states must follow U.S. guidelines, states sometimes request waivers of rules. Michigan was granted a waiver recently to stop college students from qualifying for food stamps.
"For Leroy Fick to continue to use a Bridge Card, paid for by the taxpayers, after winning the lottery, is obscene," said Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge. "What a waste of taxpayer money."
Jones contacted DHS officials Monday about Fick's case, and was told the department's hands were tied by federal regulations.
"There is no liquid asset requirement for getting food stamps," Jones said. "The department is asking the federal government for an immediate change (in policy). They're hoping this case will help the federal government act."
Until then, Fick can collect food stamps and keep his lottery winnings in the bank.
"I am not going to sit and debate the ethics of this," Wilson said. "But from his standpoint, he did what he was supposed to do -- he informed the state, and the state said he could keep using the card. The problem is with the state."

[Actor]

And he was the one who basically said in post 30 that all money comes from the government.
I then amended this in post 32 to state that money moves in a cycle. To put forth a rather poor metaphor, the money clouds (the Fed) rain money down to the sea (the economy) where it then evaporates (is taxed) back up to the clouds. :bang:

You can choose any point in the cycle as the "source." I prefer a "steady state theory" where the money has always existed and always will, albeit the Fed is able to regulate the amount that exists at any one time.

Like I said, its a poor metaphor.

And it's been 40 years since I took the course. I think I deserve at least a C for retaining as much as I do. :bang:

I'll yield the floor to Riskman. :sleeping:

[Tom]

Trust me, Milton Freidman was nothing like listening to Al Gore....nothing. He was very pro free market and opposed government intervention into business affairs. He was supportive of earned income tax credits for the poor.

That puts him squarely in the air-head bucket along with Al "millions of degrees in the center of the earth" Gore.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That puts him squarely in the air-head bucket along with Al "millions of degrees in the center of the earth" Gore.

You have no idea what you're talking about. None. Your new tagline should be "often wrong, never in doubt."

[Tom]

Opinions vary, Mike.
To me, an earned income tax credit to someone who has earned nothing and pays no taxes is just plain stupid.

[Actor]

Opinions vary, Mike.
To me, an earned income tax credit to someone who has earned nothing and pays no taxes is just plain stupid.How about the Soil Bank Program, a Department of Agriculture Program of the 1950-69s that paid farmers to NOT grow crops? :lol:

[Tom]

Totally moronic.
That is the function of low prices.

Over the years, it is hard to top our government for sheer stupidity.

[boxcar]

I then amended this in post 32 to state that money moves in a cycle. To put forth a rather poor metaphor, the money clouds (the Fed) rain money down to the sea (the economy) where it then evaporates (is taxed) back up to the clouds. :bang:

You can choose any point in the cycle as the "source." I prefer a "steady state theory" where the money has always existed and always will, albeit the Fed is able to regulate the amount that exists at any one time.

Like I said, its a poor metaphor.

And it's been 40 years since I took the course. I think I deserve at least a C for retaining as much as I do. :bang:

I'll yield the floor to Riskman. :sleeping:

I was never talking about the "movement" of money or its cycle through the system. My point was and still is: The Federal Government doesn't generate wealth. Tell me, sir: When was the last time the Federal Government (apart from scams) made any individual wealthy? I know my fair share of relatively wealthy or at least financially comfortable people, and none of them acquired their wealth from the government. The Fed did not make any of them wealthy or comfortable. The individuals did this for themselves. They generated their own wealth!

If the Federal Government is in the wealth creation/generating business, how come every single citizen of this country is not receiving his/her wealth from this benign, benevolent "benefactor", apart from any taxation?

Boxcar

[Actor]

I was never talking about the "movement" of money or its cycle through the system. My point was and still is: The Federal Government doesn't generate wealth. Tell me, sir: When was the last time the Federal Government (apart from scams) made any individual wealthy? I know my fair share of relatively wealthy or at least financially comfortable people, and none of them acquired their wealth from the government. The Fed did not make any of them wealthy or comfortable. The individuals did this for themselves. They generated their own wealth!

If the Federal Government is in the wealth creation/generating business, how come every single citizen of this country is not receiving his/her wealth from this benign, benevolent "benefactor", apart from any taxation?

BoxcarThanks for the clarification. I never said the government is the source of wealth. It's the source of money. The two are not the same thing.

[Actor]

Totally moronic.The Soil Bank Program?

[LottaKash]

If the Federal Government is in the wealth creation/generating business, how come every single citizen of this country is not receiving his/her wealth from this benign, benevolent "benefactor", apart from any taxation?

Boxcar

Keep your shirt on Box, he's (you know who) workin' onit...Patience please...We're gettin' there..

best,

[Actor]

The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves.
Do you honestly believe that that is the real purpose of our government??
The purpose of our government is to...

form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty

No one can provide any of these for himself, ergo, Mostie is correct.

[newtothegame]

The purpose of our government is to...

form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty
No one can provide any of these for himself, ergo, Mostie is correct.
It's really easy to use those vague terms (although I believe that back then, they FF knew what was intended)...
So describe what "justice" means Actor...Or "general welfare" ...Is this the term where the government has millions, if not billions in fraud? Was that what was intended?
Or is justice where our government goes after a state for trying to secure it's borders (when the government wont or can't do it)...
Or how about the NLRB going after a major corporation for deciding to open a plant in S.C? That type of justice??
Common defense.....lol Help me to understand these things that you so willing throw out there as if you know what was intended.....:lol:

[hcap]

....Tell me, sir: When was the last time the Federal Government (apart from scams) made any individual wealthy? I know my fair share of relatively wealthy or at least financially comfortable people, and none of them acquired their wealth from the government.

1- The government created wealth when it built the Erie Canal.

2-After World War II, the federal government helped unleash an era of exceptional growth through investments in schools, interstate highways and higher education.

3-Navigable canals, rivers, and coastal waterways.

4-The construction and operation of the Transcontinental Railroad was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. The Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
Directly led to telegraph lines,and the Transcontinental Telegraph.

4-Same time period. High tariffs sheltered U.S. factories and workers from foreign competition, federal railroad subsidies enriched investors, farmers and railroad workers, and created hundreds of towns and cities. Powerful "robber baron" industrialists such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Jay Gould held great wealth and power during this period.

4-Hate to say it, but the Military-industrial-academic complex. In the 20th century, technological developments became tied into a complex set of interactions between Congress, the industrial manufacturers, university research, and the military establishment.

5-Research universities. Congressional legislators, recognizing the increasing importance and prevalence of eastern polytechnic schools, passed the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act providing large grants of land that were to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions that would teach courses on military tactics, engineering, and agriculture. Many of the United States' noted public research universities can trace their origins back to land grant colleges.

6-After World War II, the GI Bill caused university enrollments to explode as millions of veterans earned college degrees.

7-Cold War and Space Race. Manhattan project, procurement, and government R&D

All the sin offs from the Space program
including computing, and biotechnology.

NASA spin-off technologies
Health and medicine
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
Infrared ear thermometers
Ventricular assist device
Artificial limbs
Transportation
Aircraft anti-icing systems
Highway safety
Improved radial tires
Chemical detection
Public safety
Video enhancing and analysis systems
Fire-resistant reinforcement
Firefighting equipment
Consumer, home, and recreation
Temper foam
Enriched baby food
Portable cordless vacuums
Freeze drying
Environmental and agricultural resources
Water purification
Solar energy
Pollution remediation
Computer technology
Structural analysis software
Remotely controlled ovens
NASA Visualization Explorer
Industrial productivity
Powdered lubricants
Improved mine safety
Food safety



We are all using the internet facilitated by satellite technology and dozens of other innovations. So box, you could not pose your silly question and comments to us all without the gov HELPING to create wealth

[hcap]

One thing further..

You would NOT be typing on your computer as it exists now. You would have to move out of your house and install this.

ENIAC Is Born

. This machine became known as ENIAC, the Electrical Numerical Integrator and Calculator.It operated on 10-digit numbers and could multiply two such numbers at the rate of 300 products per second by finding the value of each product from a multiplication table stored in its memory. ENIAC was about 1000 times faster than the previous generation of electromechanical relay computers.

ENIAC used approximately 18 000 vacuum tubes, occupied 1800 square feet (167 square meters) of floor space, and consumed around 180 000 watts of electrical power. Punched cards served as the input and output; registers served as adders and as quick-access read/write storage.

The executable instructions composing a given program were created via specified wiring and switches that controlled the flow of computations through the machine. As such, ENIAC had to be rewired and switched for each program to be run

Oops it looks like you would NOT EVEN HAVE THAT if hadn't been for the involvement of the lousy socialist feds

...Besides code-breaking, systems were needed to calculate weapons trajectory and other military functions.In 1946, John P. Eckert, John W. Mauchly, and their associates at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania built the first large-scale electronic computer for the military.

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/files/2011/02/eniac1.jpg

Hey box, hope you are as good with your hands as you are with endless blabbing. Of course you could build and patent*** a conservative abacus

***Note: Oh yeah you could not patent it using the you-know-what GOVERNMENT Commie Patent Office

[sammy the sage]

My point was and still is: The Federal Government doesn't generate wealth. Tell me, sir: When was the last time the Federal Government (apart from scams) made any individual wealthy? I know my fair share of relatively wealthy or at least financially comfortable people, and none of them acquired their wealth from the government. The Fed did not make any of them wealthy or comfortable. The individuals did this for themselves. They generated their own wealth!Boxcar

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please...Pelosi's net worth has gone from 27 mil. to 45 mil....on the other side of the aisle...Bush's went EVEN higher...

They ARE allowed to INSIDE trade and DICTATE policy that FILLS their pockets...all 546 (yep, include the big man) OF them... :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:

[sammy the sage]

By the way, back to THE original topic...

You can BUY food stamps for 50 cents ON the dollar...I would say THAT'S stimulus...of course THE wrong kind...but still :bang: :bang: :bang:

[cj's dad]

$.50 on the $1 ? Paying way too much, buy around the 20th of the month or later when the cash on the welfare account (debit card) starts to dwindle. At that point, you can buy at .20-.25 on the $1.

That's what I'm told.

[LottaKash]

One thing further..

You would NOT be typing on your computer as it exists now. You would have to move out of your house and install this.

ENIAC Is Born

.
Hey box, hope you are as good with your hands as you are with endless blabbing. Of course you could build and patent*** a conservative abacus

***Note: Oh yeah you could not patent it using the you-know-what GOVERNMENT Commie Patent Office

Ah hcap, you have forgotten a few little updates to all of this computer inventing thing...

Thanks to Bill Clinton, "the chief of underdesk operations", he gave away our current "state of the art in computing", the "SUPERCOMPUTER", to the "CHINESE", and along with that, he gave away very CHINESE favoring trade agreements.....So, thanks to "slick willie", the CHINESE now have the capability of out thinking us at our own game of computing things.....Not only that, they "OWN" us, financially, lock stock and barrel, and will continue to bombard us with kash until we ulitmately implode into sheer bankruptcy.....And, if that doesn't work, they will kill us with the Rocket and Missile technology that slick willie also gave them....

All the Commies had to do was say pretty please, and they just leaped ahead of us, and right into the "forefront" of computing and space tech, without the least aid of their own commie patent office, or of their own inventiveness....

But, you like that don't you ?

[hcap]

Ah hcap, you have forgotten a few little updates to all of this computer inventing thing...

Thanks to Bill Clinton, "the chief of underdesk operations", he gave away our current "state of the art in computing", the "SUPERCOMPUTER", to the "CHINESE", and along with that, he gave away very CHINESE favoring trade agreements.....So, thanks to "slick willie", the CHINESE now have the capability of out thinking us at our own game of computing things.....Not only that, they "OWN" us, financially, lock stock and barrel, and will continue to bombard us with kash until we ulitmately implode into sheer bankruptcy.....And, if that doesn't work, they will kill us with the Rocket and Missile technology that slick willie also gave them....

All the Commies had to do was say pretty please, and they just leaped ahead of us, and right into the "forefront" of computing and space tech, without the least aid of their own commie patent office, or of their own inventiveness....

But, you like that don't you ?

1-JUST BECAUSE YOU AND THE RIGHT WING LUNATIC FRINGE SAY SO MEANS NOTHING. PROVE IT AND IF WHAT YOU SAY TRUE, YOU IDIOTS IMPEACHED HIM FOR A BJ?

2-ALL MY EXAMPLES HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON. Except of course the dotcom bubble and silicon valley. :)

The fact remains that government can create wealth.The problem most of the time is inefficient bureaucracies. Large corporations are generally more inefficient than small companies. But scale sometimes gives large organizations an advantage. Sometimes governments also have that same advantage and throughout history large SMART organizations like Rome and the Manhattan project accomplish many innovative advances

Please don't change the subject by unfounded allegations

[LottaKash]

Please don't change the subject by unfounded allegations

hcap, I changed the subject a bit because I know that you just love a good commie story, and I couldn't resist in pleasing you...

The so called stimulus has turned out to be nothing more than a continued effort by the past few presidents to bring this nation to it's knees financially....And of what I wrote, along with this bogus stimulus that changed nothing into the positive, we are getting what they have wanted for us, for so long "complete gov't control"....They are getting their way it seems....

I know you see this too, and you are glad of it...Aren't you "comrade" ?...

[boxcar]

1- The government created wealth when it built the Erie Canal.

2-After World War II, the federal government helped unleash an era of exceptional growth through investments in schools, interstate highways and higher education.

3-Navigable canals, rivers, and coastal waterways.

4-The construction and operation of the Transcontinental Railroad was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. The Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
Directly led to telegraph lines,and the Transcontinental Telegraph.

4-Same time period. High tariffs sheltered U.S. factories and workers from foreign competition, federal railroad subsidies enriched investors, farmers and railroad workers, and created hundreds of towns and cities. Powerful "robber baron" industrialists such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Jay Gould held great wealth and power during this period.

4-Hate to say it, but the Military-industrial-academic complex. In the 20th century, technological developments became tied into a complex set of interactions between Congress, the industrial manufacturers, university research, and the military establishment.

5-Research universities. Congressional legislators, recognizing the increasing importance and prevalence of eastern polytechnic schools, passed the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act providing large grants of land that were to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions that would teach courses on military tactics, engineering, and agriculture. Many of the United States' noted public research universities can trace their origins back to land grant colleges.

6-After World War II, the GI Bill caused university enrollments to explode as millions of veterans earned college degrees.

7-Cold War and Space Race. Manhattan project, procurement, and government R&D

All the sin offs from the Space program
including computing, and biotechnology.

NASA spin-off technologies
Health and medicine
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
Infrared ear thermometers
Ventricular assist device
Artificial limbs
Transportation
Aircraft anti-icing systems
Highway safety
Improved radial tires
Chemical detection
Public safety
Video enhancing and analysis systems
Fire-resistant reinforcement
Firefighting equipment
Consumer, home, and recreation
Temper foam
Enriched baby food
Portable cordless vacuums
Freeze drying
Environmental and agricultural resources
Water purification
Solar energy
Pollution remediation
Computer technology
Structural analysis software
Remotely controlled ovens
NASA Visualization Explorer
Industrial productivity
Powdered lubricants
Improved mine safety
Food safety

Just one question, 'cap; WHO ultimately funded all these activities and projects: The government by printing money or taxpayers? Did the state confiscate someone's else's wealth or does Uncle Sam really have pockets so deep that they cannot be plumbed?

Boxcar

[hcap]

LottaKash, you and your pal boxcar should get a room.

I am always amazed when the scary spectre of the "red menace", rears its silly head here on the COMMIE/SOCIALIST/TERRORIST all the time crazy PA off topic babblefest

Denying I am a commie is not worth the effort.

So instead I will admit to Anarchisic Luddite invader from the planet Mongo. And proud member of a secret Illuminati order of 4-dimensional Vegans, conspiring to overthrow planet Earth and install Emperor Ming the Merciless as our sovereign leader

[boxcar]

So instead I will admit to Anarchisic Luddite invader from the planet Mongo.

Geesh, Klugman might have been onto something with his alien invasion brainchild and didn't even know it. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[LottaKash]

LottaKash, you and your pal boxcar should get a room.

I am always amazed when the scary spectre of the "red menace", rears its silly head here on the COMMIE/SOCIALIST/TERRORIST all the time crazy PA off topic babblefest

Denying I am a commie is not worth the effort.

.............install Emperor Ming the Merciless as our sovereign leader

Ming is among us already....

You'r OK, lock me up....:jump:

[hcap]

Just one question, 'cap; WHO ultimately funded all these activities and projects: The government by printing money or taxpayers? Did the state confiscate someone's else's wealth or does Uncle Sam really have pockets so deep that they cannot be plumbed?
You said:My point was and still is: The Federal Government doesn't generate wealth. Tell me, sir: When was the last time the Federal Government (apart from scams) made any individual wealthy?I answered.

Wealth is the transformation of labor, raw materials, innovation and organization into a commodity or service that is desirable.

So ALL of the items I mentioned do so and prime the pump for the private sector TO PICK UP THE BALL CREATING WEALTH IN A FORM THAT DID NOT EXIST PRIOR.

If the government builds an interstate highway system by tax revenue or BONDS as it has done many times financing all sorts of projects, does not the town or cities or industries that spring up along access points on the interstate have the prospect of generating wealth after the pump is primed? Any idea how much wealth is generated by just BOND sale where the government performs both a capitalistic and socialistic service and ultimately increases wealth for both the buyer of the BOND and the improved commonwealth of the citizens?





Yours Truly Ming...

http://flashgordon.ws/images/ming_main.jpg

[boxcar]

You said:I answered.

Wealth is the transformation of labor, raw materials, innovation and organization into a commodity or service that is desirable.

Your answer begs the question. This is why I essentially asked: Who funds all this transformation? From whence does the money come? As the old adage goes: Follow the money. The source of the funding is the source of the wealth. Do you not know, Captain Ming, that it takes money to make money!? Elementary stuff! :rolleyes: Therefore, the government is merely the middleman with these projects, for the private sector ultimately funds these projects.

Very truly yours,
Boxcar

[hcap]

You act as though middlemen are evil. Almost all businesses use middlemen. What are salespeople, jobbers, lumber yards? Meaningless critique. Ran a shop in NYC. Built expensive furniture using acrylic. Some 3 or 4" in thickness some thinner for point of purchase displays. Ever try to buy one unit of X item from a main supplier whose minimum order is 100?

An example of the government acting as a middleman....

1-Customers buy apples from local street vendor@ 1 dollar each. Vender turns a profit, buys another apple cart and so on and so on. Vendor thrives customers are given needed commodity. Free hand of Adam Smith smiles.

2- The same apple cart entrepreneur opens up a wholesale apple outlet parallel to new highway. A citizen tax payer or bond holder motorist that used to buy 2 or 3 apples ar a time buys over 10lb at a 40%discount. At the same time drops his wife off at the new job created by a new industry that was created by access to the new interstate highway financed by tax payer dollars


In both cases the buyer and the seller, and Adam Smiths inadvisable hand, all prosper Even though they now must follow and pay for stricter environmental smog regulations Apple vendor writes most of it off and our citizen tax payer bond holder, wife and baby get to live an additional expected 5 years because more apples are good and smog is bad, and if a bond holder uses the matured bond to help pay for child's' college tuition.

[boxcar]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please...Pelosi's net worth has gone from 27 mil. to 45 mil....on the other side of the aisle...Bush's went EVEN higher...

They ARE allowed to INSIDE trade and DICTATE policy that FILLS their pockets...all 546 (yep, include the big man) OF them... :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:

I said besides scams (crooked, corrupt dealings). So Pelosi wouldn't qualify according to your own statements.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You act as though middlemen are evil.

I didn't say that. But in the case of government, that particular middleman didn't bring any wealth to the table. That middleman had to depend upon the wealth of others. Therefore, that middleman was not ultimately responsible for generating any wealth in the private sector.

Now, contrast that middleman with one for whom I actually worked many moons ago. He was a "super" or "master" distributor in the disposables industry. And I was a salesman in the organization. The owner's father started the business many years before I joined the company. Guess whose money the owner's father used to start the business? Would you believe his own? (What a novel idea, eh? :rolleyes: ). He didn't rely upon others for his money. Oh, but wait...I hear someone saying already that he probably borrowed money from a bank to help him get started? He might have! But so what!? The bank would not have lent him the money if he had not been creditworthy. So, here, too, the father had earned his credit stripes in order to get the money he needed.

And as a salesman, what did I bring to the table in terms of assuming any risks with this company? Nothing! All I brought were my sales and administrative skills to help grow the company. But I risked nothing in terms of my capital or wealth.

Middlemen in the private sector are one thing, 'cap; but quite another in the public one; for in the former case, they bring their wealth to the table by risking some or all of it on their OWN business, whereas in the latter case, the government must still rely on the private sector for its funding. When government is involved, funding flows to them from the private sector and passes back out from them to the private sector. Huge difference. Stated differently: The government never has any of its own stikin' skin in the game because, ultimately, it does not and cannot generate wealth!

Government is neither self-sufficient nor self-sustaining. Live it. Love it. And learn it. ;)

Boxcar

[Lefty]

"The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves. Government is not there to make a profit. "
mostie said that.
The problem with the economy today is that all liberals believe it, including the current president.

[hcap]

Stated differently: The government never has any of its own stikin' skin in the game because, ultimately, it does not and cannot generate wealth!

Government is neither self-sufficient nor self-sustaining. Live it. Love it. And learn it. I illustrated dozens of government generated innovations that started entire industries. The creation of public works programs such as the interstate highway system transformed this country and similar public projects throughout the western world.

It makes very little difference whether or not the civil engineer working for a engineering firm contracted by and for the government building an overpass has DIRECT skin n the game of the financing of the project. The government pays him thru the firm and the firm a private organization has plenty of skin involved in acquiring that project and others. A government contractor must still follow good business practices and hire good people. They are the middleman here and must perform as well as the engineer.

"Skin in the game" monetarily may effect efficiency, and yes I will agree that waste is a problem, but any large corporation with a hierarchical bureaucracy is also wasteful. I know small businesses can be a lot more flexible and efficient having done both. But large scale multifaceted projects need resources only governments can muster.

[Actor]

It's really easy to use those vague terms (although I believe that back then, they FF knew what was intended)...
So describe what "justice" means Actor...Or "general welfare" ...Is this the term where the government has millions, if not billions in fraud? Was that what was intended?
Or is justice where our government goes after a state for trying to secure it's borders (when the government wont or can't do it)...
Or how about the NLRB going after a major corporation for deciding to open a plant in S.C? That type of justice??
Common defense.....lol Help me to understand these things that you so willing throw out there as if you know what was intended.....:lol:What I "threw out" was the preamble to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is still deciding what it means on a case by case basis.

[Actor]

"The purpose of government is to provide services to its citizens which they can not provide to themselves. Government is not there to make a profit. "
mostie said that.
The problem with the economy today is that all liberals believe it, including the current president.
I don't want the government to make a profit. The minute the government makes a profit it is self sufficient and no longer answerable to the people.

[newtothegame]

What I "threw out" was the preamble to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is still deciding what it means on a case by case basis.
Duhhhh ...I knew what it was... That's why I mentioned the FF (founding fathers)....but nice way to avoid the question anyways....:lol:

[boxcar]

I illustrated dozens of government generated innovations that started entire industries. The creation of public works programs such as the interstate highway system transformed this country and similar public projects throughout the western world.

It makes very little difference whether or not the civil engineer working for a engineering firm contracted by and for the government building an overpass has DIRECT skin n the game of the financing of the project. The government pays him thru the firm and the firm a private organization has plenty of skin involved in acquiring that project and others. A government contractor must still follow good business practices and hire good people. They are the middleman here and must perform as well as the engineer.

"Skin in the game" monetarily may effect efficiency, and yes I will agree that waste is a problem, but any large corporation with a hierarchical bureaucracy is also wasteful. I know small businesses can be a lot more flexible and efficient having done both. But large scale multifaceted projects need resources only governments can muster.

Wake up and smell the coffee, already. Any corporation making a decent profit is experiencing very little "shrink" or waste! But a government doesn't care about waste or shrink precisely because it has no skin in the game. If it needs more money, government doesn't have to go out and earn it. All they do is tax people or corporations or levy fees or increase fines, etc. -- or sell bonds :rolleyes: .

But never forget:For every "government-generated innovation", there are hundreds to be named in the private sector. And the private sector rolls its own, thank you, in terms of financing. If government was self-sufficient and self-sustaining, it wouldn't need taxpayers! It wouldn't need to confiscate other people's wealth to bankroll it's "innovations"! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[hcap]

But never forget:For every "government-generated innovation", there are hundreds to be named in the private sector. And the private sector rolls its own, thank you, in terms of financing. If government was self-sufficient and self-sustaining, it wouldn't need taxpayers! It wouldn't need to confiscate other people's wealth to bankroll it's "innovations"!
I know no matter what I say you will never admit the government has ever done 1 positive thing.

You said
My point was and still is: The Federal Government doesn't generate wealth. Tell me, sir: When was the last time the Federal Government (apart from scams) made any individual wealthy? I PROVED that is a lie. Then you changed the subject not wanting to deal with facts and divert to saying they can't because of the idiotic phrase "skin in the blah, blah, blah"...... All besides the simple fact that the government has. Now you switch to some pie in the sky private invention vs government innovation comparison ratio.
But never forget:For every "government-generated innovation", there are hundreds to be named in the private sector.
You haven't any facts to demonstrate the 100's to 1 and more importantly the effect of VERY LARGE SCALE innovation that has accelerated rapidly in the 20th and 21st century. We are no longer talking Edison working within a small group

Do this: Refute my earlier post listing in detail ALL the innovations that stemmed from government involvement, instead of speculating on why the government couldn't HAVE POSSIBLY DONE WHAT WAS DONE Empiricism bears faith based history. It was done and it is still being done.

BTW, the human genome project is one more I forgot to mention.

..."Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was a 13-year project coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health.

[Lefty]

The govt was not meant to be the big teat. It was meant to defend us from our enemies not defend people from their own inadequacies.

[boxcar]

I know no matter what I say you will never admit the government has ever done 1 positive thing.

You said
I PROVED that is a lie. Then you changed the subject not wanting to deal with facts and divert to saying they can't because of the idiotic phrase "skin in the blah, blah, blah"...... All besides the simple fact that the government has. Now you switch to some pie in the sky private invention vs government innovation comparison ratio.

You haven't any facts to demonstrate the 100's to 1 and more importantly the effect of VERY LARGE SCALE innovation that has accelerated rapidly in the 20th and 21st century. We are no longer talking Edison working within a small group

Do this: Refute my earlier post listing in detail ALL the innovations that stemmed from government involvement, instead of speculating on why the government couldn't HAVE POSSIBLY DONE WHAT WAS DONE Empiricism bears faith based history. It was done and it is still being done.

BTW, the human genome project is one more I forgot to mention.

..."Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was a 13-year project coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health.

Hey, 'cappy, any entity (public or private) can innovate out of all their bodily orifices, but if they don't have the money to implement their innovations, what good is it? Money talks. Everything else walks. Money makes the world go around, not innovations. It's not the love of innovations that is root of all evil, it's the love of money. The irrefutable fact is that no government on the planet would have a pot to piss in unless it robs or taxes (forgive the redundancy in very many cases!) its citizens in the private sector.

And the former greatness of this country verifies my very modest claims of the 100/1 ratio. The U.S. government did not make this country great. Many, many INDIVIDUALS in the private sector did. Numerous people in the private sector who were willing to risk their capital, did! People who actually had their skin in the game, as opposed (for the most part) to their low-life, blood sucking, leeching counterparts in the public sector whose only ambition in life is to buy more votes to get reelected and acquire even more power.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Food Stamps are Stimulus
And remember when Pelosi said unemployment benefits helped the economy.
Hey, this country should be booming if those tenets are correct!

sadly, they are not...

[Actor]

Duhhhh ...I knew what it was... That's why I mentioned the FF (founding fathers)....Thanks for the clarification on the meaning of FF. I thought it was something obscene but wasn't sure exactly what.

but nice way to avoid the question anyways....:lol:The question simply isn't worth answering. I have better things to do than go down that road. If the meaning of the preamble is not clear to you then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.

However, just for laughs...

Establish justice -- Casey Anthony walks.
General Welfare -- food stamps.
Common Defense -- Jose Baez.

[newtothegame]

Thanks for the clarification on the meaning of FF. I thought it was something obscene but wasn't sure exactly what.

The question simply isn't worth answering. I have better things to do than go down that road. If the meaning of the preamble is not clear to you then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.

However, just for laughs...

Establish justice -- Casey Anthony walks.
General Welfare -- food stamps.
Common Defense -- Jose Baez.


lol a good laugh none the less !!
Now you may not find the question worthy of a response....
that was not the point. The point was that the terms above, today, have a different meaning. You may think justice means letting casey anthony walk....I find that justice appaling. Yeah yeah I know the case wasnt proven yada yada yada...(another thread maybe) lol.
Point is the government is not here to distribute anymore then the original FF had discussed. The politicians have conveniently changed the meaning of these words to reflect THEIR OWN ideas. I do not believe that was intended in our constitution. If they want to change it, there is a way....just writing executive orders or bypassing it all together is not the right way!

[hcap]

Hey, 'cappy, any entity (public or private) can innovate out of all their bodily orifices, but if they don't have the money to implement their innovations, what good is it? Money talks. Everything else walks. Money makes the world go around, not innovations.
It's not the love of innovations that is root of all evil, it's the love of money. The irrefutable fact is that no government on the planet would have a pot to piss in unless it robs or taxes (forgive the redundancy in very many cases!) its citizens in the private sector.

And the former greatness of this country verifies my very modest claims of the 100/1 ratio. The U.S. government did not make this country great. Many, many INDIVIDUALS in the private sector did. Numerous people in the private sector who were willing to risk their capital, did! People who actually had their skin in the game, as opposed (for the most part) to their low-life, blood sucking, leeching counterparts in the public sector whose only ambition in life is to buy more votes to get reelected and acquire even more power.I posted a list of items showing government creates wealth contrary to your assertion that it can't. You did say that. The rest of your ensuing argument on why it can't is worthless unless you can prove the list wrong.

Every point you have made subsequent to "the government cannot create wealth" is therefore unsupportable

1-So your "skin in the game" argument is erroneous. Governmental officials do not have monetary skin in the game Therefore those legislators in government who helped organize public works must have some other sort of SKIN involved, for which you have no answer. In fact it invalidates your silly skin premise. As I stated, a personal monetary stake may improve efficiency, but it is not absolutely necessary. Proven empirically by my list

2-Your next point:The irrefutable fact is that no government on the planet would have a pot to piss in unless it robs or taxes (forgive the redundancy in very many cases!) its citizens in the private sector.SO what?

The Constitution of the US and the laws and statutes of ALL modern countries allow taxation. In fact our constitution enables the government to raise monies for the common good

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause. The powers to tax and spend are concurrent powers of the federal government and the individual states. These two powers have been received over time to be very broad, but have also, on occasion, been abridged by the courts. They are also currently held to be independent powers, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.

So it is not a scam. Nor is it unlawful to tax. Nor does it invalidate my proof that the government does indeed create wealth. The government raises money lawfully.. Reasonable citizens may disagree on the amount and implementation, but not that it is lawful. Therefore your silly contention about money not originating (although there are many instances where it does) with government is meaningless in the context of creating wealth, and beside the point. You are entitled to your philosophical slant, but lose again on the merits of your case.

[elysiantraveller]

I went up north this past weekend and saw something that I found interesting.

Here in Michigan we are charged a 10c deposit on all carbonated beverages that we can then return to receive our money back.

So I'm up at our cabin standing in the booze and smoke line at the small grocery store waiting to buy a new tank for the grill when I notice the guy in front of me is paying with a Bridge Card. He buys a bunch of food and also three 12 packs of soda that the State charges itself deposit on. He rings everything up pays for it with his bridge card and then, after he is done, hands the lady some bottle return slips, collects his 4 or 5 dollars and walks away...

Not trying to stir anything up as this thread is already off topic enough but I thought it was an interesting loophole.

[Lefty]

If the govt can really create wealth and you have the perfect guy in the WH who agrees with that wholeheartedly and for two yrs had a majority in Congress and could pass anything he wanted-i.e. stimulus and Obama Care-
then how come this country's economy is just not absolutely sizzling?
We should have the best economic times ever, given your assertions.
Where's all that wealth the govt has created? Hmmm? Hmmm?

[boxcar]

I posted a list of items showing government creates wealth contrary to your assertion that it can't. You did say that. The rest of your ensuing argument on why it can't is worthless unless you can prove the list wrong.

Every point you have made subsequent to "the government cannot create wealth" is therefore unsupportable

1-So your "skin in the game" argument is erroneous. Governmental officials do not have monetary skin in the game Therefore those legislators in government who helped organize public works must have some other sort of SKIN involved, for which you have no answer. In fact it invalidates your silly skin premise. As I stated, a personal monetary stake may improve efficiency, but it is not absolutely necessary. Proven empirically by my list

2-Your next point:SO what?

The Constitution of the US and the laws and statutes of ALL modern countries allow taxation. In fact our constitution enables the government to raise monies for the common good

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause. The powers to tax and spend are concurrent powers of the federal government and the individual states. These two powers have been received over time to be very broad, but have also, on occasion, been abridged by the courts. They are also currently held to be independent powers, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.

So it is not a scam. Nor is it unlawful to tax. Nor does it invalidate my proof that the government does indeed create wealth. The government raises money lawfully.. Reasonable citizens may disagree on the amount and implementation, but not that it is lawful. Therefore your silly contention about money not originating (although there are many instances where it does) with government is meaningless in the context of creating wealth, and beside the point. You are entitled to your philosophical slant, but lose again on the merits of your case.

It does invalidate your lame argument because it doesn't take innovation to make money. It takes MONEY to make money! So, any wealth that is created through the government is ultimately created by the taxpayers or bond buyers who actually paid the freight with their money.

As stated previously, one can have a truckload of great, ingenious, innovative ideas but they are worthless unless he has the capital to implement them..

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxy, absolutely right. The Govt has no money and no way to get any money
except through taxes. If the govt could create wealth then there would be no need for taxes at all and everything would be hunky dory. But that's not the case is it?
They spend more money than they take in and that creates deficits, not wealth.

[hcap]

Both of you are just parroting pablum.

An entity whether private or public, creates wealth through acquiring funds thru' the "free market" or lawful taxation and the selling of governmental bonds, and then provides labor, organization and raw materials to produce a commodity or service that is desirable. The private sector produces this wealth for itself and other private entities-generally, while the government produces commonwealth for it's citizen. And Commonwealth improves private wealth in most cases

Once again how did the creation of our interstate highway system not produce wealth? How did the government's active assistance and funding in numerous technological advances such as the computer not produce wealth? I suppose neither of you use a cell phone or a computer and rely on the underlying satellite technology?

[Lefty]

How wealthy is the govt these days, eh?

[newtothegame]

I see this as a relatively simple question.....
Regarding government versus private, you need only ask yourself one simple question. Which can survive without the other.....
Government MUST rely on taxes as a base for its continued income.....
The private sector creates it's own income......
Now you can discuss the validity or not of regulations etc etc (for the common good),but the point is that with or without regulation, the private sector would survive through adaptation based on the needs of the consumers it provdes goods too.

[Actor]

Government MUST rely on taxes as a base for its continued income.....Historically not true. Although taxes have been with us for thousands of years the use of taxes as the source of a government's income is relatively new, dating back about 500 years in the west. The Roman Empire did not rely on taxes for its power, but then I would not care to be an ancient Roman. In Rome power was used to obtain wealth; today wealth is used to obtain power.

[newtothegame]

Historically not true. Although taxes have been with us for thousands of years the use of taxes as the source of a government's income is relatively new, dating back about 500 years in the west. The Roman Empire did not rely on taxes for its power, but then I would not care to be an ancient Roman. In Rome power was used to obtain wealth; today wealth is used to obtain power.

True actor....
And no disrespect meant...but although I like history as to not repeat the mistakes, I prefer to live in the present day where as I said, Taxes are a must for the government to obtain it's income.

[Tom]

How wealthy is the govt these days, eh?

Apple has more cash.

[Actor]

Now you can discuss the validity or not of regulations etc etc (for the common good),but the point is that with or without regulation, the private sector would survive through adaptation based on the needs of the consumers it provides goods too.[sic]I take it that you do not subscribe to the Keynesian Theory?

[iceknight]

You have no idea what you're talking about. None. Your new tagline should be "often wrong, never in doubt."


haha nice one mike!!

[Tom]

I take it that you do not subscribe to the Keynesian Theory?

It is not a theory - Obama is really from Kenya, not the USA.

[Actor]

It is not a theory - Obama is really from Kenya, not the USA.Not Kenya. John Maynard Keynes, the economist. :lol:

[rastajenk]

Don Maynard's knees? No, man, it was Joe Namath with the knees.

[boxcar]

Historically not true. Although taxes have been with us for thousands of years the use of taxes as the source of a government's income is relatively new, dating back about 500 years in the west. The Roman Empire did not rely on taxes for its power, but then I would not care to be an ancient Roman. In Rome power was used to obtain wealth; today wealth is used to obtain power.

Shirely U Jest! Rome was big on collecting taxes. Why do you think, as one example, the Jewish tax collectors of Jesus' day, were so hated by their countrymen? And did not Jesus teach:

Luke 20:22-25
22 "Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" 23 But He detected their trickery and said to them, 24 "Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" And they said, "Caesar's." 25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
NASB

Also, way before Jesus' time, back in Solomon's day, the Jews paid heavy taxes so that Solomon could fund his very ambitious national projects, e.g. the construction of the great temple, his lavish living quarters, huge stables, etc . And what makes this even more interesting is that during most of his reign, Israel lived in peace, meaning no wars had to be funded! In short, Solomon was true blue "tax and spend" kinda guy. :D

Boxcar

[Actor]

Shirely U Jest! Rome was big on collecting taxes. Why do you think, as one example, the Jewish tax collectors of Jesus' day, were so hated by their countrymen? And did not Jesus teach:

Luke 20:22-25
22 "Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" 23 But He detected their trickery and said to them, 24 "Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" And they said, "Caesar's." 25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
NASB

Also, way before Jesus' time, back in Solomon's day, the Jews paid heavy taxes so that Solomon could fund his very ambitious national projects, e.g. the construction of the great temple, his lavish living quarters, huge stables, etc . And what makes this even more interesting is that during most of his reign, Israel lived in peace, meaning no wars had to be funded! In short, Solomon was true blue "tax and spend" kinda guy. :D

Boxcar
Yes, Rome was big on collecting taxes, but mostly from conquered territories, e.g., Judea. Roman citizens were taxed little or nothing (depending on the century). The primary source of labor was slavery. For citizens it was "bread and circuses." Foreign conquest was Rome's major industry. Soldiers were not paid until after a battle when they got their share of the spoils.

Taxes have been with us since the invention of money. But before the Renaissance the primary source of governmental power was that very power, not taxation, i.e., do what the government says and we will take care of you, otherwise, you die.

[llegend39]

Finally, we have someone to put on the food stamp!Obama's policies have put more people on welfare than any president before him, so this placement is most appropriate. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he did nothing, this is an "honor" he richly deserves

[LottaKash]

Finally, we have someone to put on the food stamp!Obama's policies have put more people on welfare than any president before him, so this placement is most appropriate. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he did nothing, this is an "honor" he richly deserves

Nice likeness of the "World's Greatest Organizer"....

best,

[CryingForTheHorses]

Let's put EVERYONE on food stamps and welfare and watch this economy TAKE OFF!


Clue for mostie - I provide my own food, housing, health care and clothing. I guess we don't need government to do that for us.

To be honest.I have never seen a food stamp!! Somebody post a pic of one please..Us Canadians aye!

[CryingForTheHorses]

Finally, we have someone to put on the food stamp!Obama's policies have put more people on welfare than any president before him, so this placement is most appropriate. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he did nothing, this is an "honor" he richly deserves

Sorry didnt see this

[boxcar]

Yes, Rome was big on collecting taxes, but mostly from conquered territories, e.g., Judea. Roman citizens were taxed little or nothing (depending on the century). The primary source of labor was slavery. For citizens it was "bread and circuses." Foreign conquest was Rome's major industry. Soldiers were not paid until after a battle when they got their share of the spoils.

If this was the case with soldiers, I'm led to wonder at John the Baptist's admonition to Roman soldiers:

Luke 3:14
14 And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
NASB

Of course, these were occupying troops, so maybe the salary arrangements were different for them.

And I also question your opinion about slave labor more or less dispensing with the necessity for taxes. Again, Solomon had a huge forced labor force, but he still taxed. Even Darius, king of the Medes, centuries later ordered his officials in the surrounding provinces of Judea, that the reconstruction of the Jews' Temple should be paid for from the royal treasury out of the taxes of the provinces (Ezr 6:8)

Taxes have been with us since the invention of money.

And death for even longer -- right after the Fall of Man. Therefore, Death and Taxes are indeed two of life's certainties. :D

But before the Renaissance the primary source of governmental power was that very power, not taxation, i.e., do what the government says and we will take care of you, otherwise, you die.

Just the way it is today under Communism. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

McSchell, actually there are no physical food stamps anymore. They give you a kind of credit card and load it on your due date with whatever you qualify for.
I remember in the 70's and before you actually had to pay for half your food stamps. Anybody know when exacly that changed? My guess, the Carter years.

[hcap]

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/economy-and-world-war-ii


The Economy and World War II

"I'm curious about something. Conservatives are forever reminding us liberals that the New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression. It was World War II that got us out of the Great Depression. And roughly speaking, that's true enough.

So why, then, isn't that a good model for getting us out of our current slump? WWII featured five years with federal deficits above 10% of GDP, three of which were above 20% of GDP. And although WWII might have been a good thing for global freedom, all that spending was for war materiel that was completely useless to the U.S. economy. If we repeated this today, we could do better than that even if half the stimulus spending was meaningless makework.

So what's the deal? Did WWII rescue the American economy or not? And if it did, what's the argument for not trying it again, but without the war?"


http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_deficit_wwii_0.jpg

[Actor]

So what's the deal? Did WWII rescue the American economy or not? And if it did, what's the argument for not trying it again, but without the war?"Just substitute fixing the infrastructure for the war.

Remember the "pay me now or pay me later" commercial. "Pay me now" for a oil change or "pay me later" for a new engine. We will have to fix the infrastructure sooner or later and it will cost a lot more to fix it later. Fixing it now, even if we (gasp) have to borrow the money to do it, makes more sense.

And we will have to fix the infrastructure sooner or later. If you think otherwise you are in for a big shock.

[rastajenk]

Then why didn't we fix up stuff during the surplus boom times of Clinton, or as the skate calls him, FishbellyBill? :D Why do we wait till times are tough to fix infrastructure?

Repairs are always ongoing. Ask anyone who drives for a living. Our roads are in no more of a critical state than they usually are.

[Lefty]

They have been constantly working on the roads since I've been in Vegas and I've been here 30 yrs.
What you don't seem to understand hcap is the money, in the form of taxes,
has to come from real people with real jobs. No jobs no taxes. Tax revenues are down due to the massive amt of people out of work. And no, raising taxes on millionaires is not the answer.

[hcap]

Are you saying the tax base was LARGER during the GREAT Depression? Were there more people with "real jobs"then?

Running a deficit as we did during WWII featured five years with federal deficits above 10% of GDP, three of which were above 20% of GDP.The way it works is you get the economy running and pay for deficits then thru taxes on REAL jobs created when it is fixed and humming. Up until the Bush years and the recent Recession, SEVERE austerity measures were not needed. The recession is what killed real jobs.

Roosevelt dealt withe the Depression successfully, and we can do the same with the Recession

A larger road building campaign, LARGER then simply fixing a few potholes on your street, as Eisenhower did with the interstate is what we need. It would go a long way in dropping the unemployment rate, and updating needed infrastructure

[Tom]

You want to get spending going through the roof?
Stop all federal taxes for 12 months. Let us take home 100% of our paychecks - then get the hell out our way.

[hcap]

Spending was way more thru the roof during the Depression snd WWII

All spending? What about SS, Medicare and paying the military? Among dozens of other vital services

[Lefty]

hcap, you know darn well that there were those in the Roosevelt admin that blved that they extended the depression 7 yrs with all that spending.

[bigmack]

hcap on a retro roll in this thread. He's all over WWII spending, depression era spending and the Erie Canal. The Erie Farkin Canal! :lol:

What's next, the rate of inflation caused by the destruction of Pompeii?

[JustRalph]

hcap on a retro roll in this thread. He's all over WWII spending, depression era spending and the Erie Canal. The Erie Farkin Canal! :lol:

What's next, the rate of inflation caused by the destruction of Pompeii?

It was pure stimulus.....somebody had to clean up all that ash

[rastajenk]

Dem Libs are always looking back. They don't realize it, would never admit it, but the evidence is all around us. O'barama looked sapped, completely out of ideas and lacking the "vision thing," when he longed for a new Sputnik moment in the State of the Union address. That was a powerful metaphor for me, the left's lack of evolution.

[Tom]

It is hard to look ahead when your head is so far up your ass.

[Actor]

You want to get spending going through the roof?
Stop all federal taxes for 12 months. Let us take home 100% of our paychecks - then get the hell out our way.
Are we to borrow an additional $3 trillion to pay the government's bills during that year?

[Actor]

You want to get spending going through the roof?
Stop all federal taxes for 12 months. Let us take home 100% of our paychecks - then get the hell out our way.
Are we to borrow an additional $3 trillion to pay the government's bills during that year?No comment?

[hcap]

The food stamp President.


/v/-AnuDkXlX0o?v

[Tom]

No comment?

Why not?
We have already borrowed 15 trillion.

[Tom]

The food stamp President.


/v/-AnuDkXlX0o?v

This is the only one who wears it like a badge of honor.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The food stamp President.


/v/-AnuDkXlX0o?v

I'll make a confession: I like El Senor Luis. Even though I don't really agree with very much of what he's selling most of the time, the man has done a good job advancing his agenda and being a representative for his "people". He's flamboyant and doesn't duck from a fight, seeking out media that won't necessarily support him and taking his message to those that he knows are on the other side of his issue.

But...

What a colossal waste of time and money that rant is. No wonder congress gets nothing done when these guys are up there with charts, graphs, and pictures to campaign against Newt Gingrich, two Bushes that will never be president again, and carrying water for Obama.

What's really odd about this tirade is that Gutierrez' main objective in life has been immigration reform and of all of the republican contenders, Gingrich is much closest to someone that he would find common ground with on that.

Maybe he's auditioning for a new Glenn Beck style TV show. Maybe he's afraid he'll become irrelevant if he doesn't attack the man that would diminish his role as advocate for certain "victims".

Anyway- certainly not Luis' finest moment - the man certainly has bigger things to say and better ways to say them than that weird tangent full of mixed messages. He loves Obama because he has expanded SNAP, but mocks both Bushes for the same reasons; interjects some nonsense about percentages of black/white recipients and tries to tie it to Gingrich... It was an embarassing mess that highlights the worst elements of partisan stupidity and honestly, I thought Senor Luis was just a little bit better than that.

[Tom]

Seriously, John, isn't it better they waste time like this than actually vote on bills none of them have read?

An idle congress is a good congress.
Nothing good ever came out of the capital building.

[badcompany]

hcap on a retro roll in this thread. He's all over WWII spending, depression era spending and the Erie Canal. The Erie Farkin Canal! :lol:

What's next, the rate of inflation caused by the destruction of Pompeii?

The current liberal fad is to harken back the 1950s, the good old days when a husband could support a family on a menial job.

Of course, this bit of nostalgia begs the question, if the 1950s were so great, why were liberals rebelling against that decade in the 1960s?

I had a good laugh at HCAPs government highlight reel. If you take all the best plays of a .200 hitter and ignore all the strikeouts, pop ups, and weak grounders, you can make anyone look like an all star.

With regard to food stamps being stimulus, the phony demand they create prop up prices and lower real wages of working people. In other words, the pie stays the same size, there are just more hands grabbing at it.

If you want to support food stamps or extending unemployment insurance, do so from a humanitarian standpoint, but, don't lie and say they help the economy.

[hcap]

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

"The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.

The expansion of government benefits has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum, who won 57 percent of the vote in Chisago County in the Republican presidential caucuses last week, has warned of “the narcotic of government dependency."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all


We are all Socialists now.Grab your guns and get ready to force your middle class neighbors to become self-sufficient and stop being lazy slovenly good-for-nothing ANCHORS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/12/us/12entitle-graphic2/12entitle-graphic2-popup.jpg

[delayjf]

So why, then, isn't that a good model for getting us out of our current slump?

I for one support Hcap on this issue - we need to double this country's military spending :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

I for one support Hcap on this issue - we need to double this country's military spending :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:Cut it in half and in 10 years the deficit would be gone, and SS would be solvent. While we are at it, get rid of the Bush tax cuts.

Yep I agree!!

[Tom]

Better yet, get rid of all the stupid regulations and threats against businesses that creation the doubt that is preventing job growth.

Obama is to job creation as gasoline is to fire fighting.

If we had a president who was not a complete socialist dictator wannabe failure, we would have 5% unemployment today.

We need a safety net because of the moron in the WH.

[badcompany]

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

"The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.

The expansion of government benefits has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum, who won 57 percent of the vote in Chisago County in the Republican presidential caucuses last week, has warned of “the narcotic of government dependency."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all


We are all Socialists now.Grab your guns and get ready to force your middle class neighbors to become self-sufficient and stop being lazy slovenly good-for-nothing ANCHORS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/12/us/12entitle-graphic2/12entitle-graphic2-popup.jpg

Ya gotta love Liberal logic.

Their Social programs, like Medicare, cause medical expenses to skyrocket. Then, when more people need these programs because they've been priced out of the private sector, Libs do a victory dance, "You see? You see? We need these programs!!!"

[boxcar]

I for one support Hcap on this issue - we need to double this country's military spending :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

:lol: :lol: And I support your support.

Boxcar