RE: Welfare - are you for or against it and why?
February 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2011 at 8:31 pm by theVOID.)
(February 23, 2011 at 2:57 pm)Ashendant Wrote:(February 23, 2011 at 6:26 am)theVOID Wrote: Shame about their fiscal recklessness and tendency to mandate mundanity, because inn terms of social liberties they are the better of the two parties.
Because it's part of socialism and americans have been indoctrinated to demonize any hint of socialism
I have no clue what you've quoted has to do with your response but...
1) It's NOT part of ANY single political ideology, it's ONE state mechanism that can be adopted to various extents across various systems.
2) No, they already fear Communists from way back so the GOP have an easy time equating social policy with socialism.
(February 23, 2011 at 4:34 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: Why do you trust the "private sector" so much? The private sector will abuse everything (as government does) if it's to their benefit, as history shows. That's why we regulate the private sector.
The private sector is not a benign force as libertarians make it out to be...
Back on point: I support welfare for those who need it. A proper system should be put into place for it to work though.
Government WASTES RESOURCES, they're the most inefficient spenders you will EVER find. The private sector isn't supposed to be something to help us all out, it's not a fantasy story, it's just the idea that when people are in charge of their own lives there is more capital available for a society to progress, when people can make their own contracts without the myriad of regulations bogging them down services can be provided cheaper, when the government doesn't direct assets (like giving subsidies for houses) and bail out business (which should have failed for being reckless), guarantee investments (which are supposed to be by their very definition a risk) there is less chance of a financial meltdown.
Rather than letting them get their grubby little paws on everything we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities.
.
