Quoted for truth

April 21st, 2011

This is what I think…I just wasn’t smart enough to write it:

At some point, best viagra capsule this historic debate must address the real pathological origins of federal debt: Congressmen, find senators, and administration officials of both parties have steered public monies to chosen constituents and causes, without any worry whether the money helps or harms, because by doing so they can build a political base and, in many cases, gain personal profit while in office and real riches when out of office.

Right now, Democrats are arguing that record-level social spending programs are absolutely necessary; that when they fail to achieve promised results, it’s because of too little money; and that anyone who questions these premises is a cruel megaphones for the wealthy who wants to throw the ill out on the street. This is the familiar circular logic of big government: When massive infusions of cash fail to produce results, the reason is insufficient funding — not that it creates complacency and dependency in lieu of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

via Failure Is Very Much an Option – By Victor Davis Hanson – The Corner – National Review Online.

Entry Filed under: Observations

14 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  April 21st, 2011 at 11:02 am

    At some point, this historic debate must address the real pathological origins of federal debt:

    Yes, let’s address the real pathological origins of federal debt.

    Is it the $695 billion in Social Security funding, of which 0% comes from income taxes and adds 0 dollars annually to the federal debt (and, indeed, the program’s current revenue versus expenditures actually somewhat reduces the deficit by a small amount – the “myth” of the Clinton surplus, so to speak).

    Is it the $453 billion in Medicare spending of which 0% comes from income taxes?

    Is it the $663.7 billion in DoD spending, $53 billion in VA, and $42.7 billion in Homeland Security? Basically current and past military or security spending.

    Is it the $571 billion in basically all of those “other mandatory programs” section? Unemployment, food stamps, nutrition programs, disability, student loans, and a multitude of other things.

    Or is it the $46.7 billion in federal education spending?

    But you know, let’s focus on universities and education in the article.

  • 2. Elliot  |  April 21st, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Guess it’s a good thing we have that trust fund, huh?

  • 3. Debunked  |  April 21st, 2011 at 11:13 am

    You know what’s awesome about the Social Security trust fund? It’s already included in the national debt!

    It’s like if you borrow $1000 from your savings account and then write down in your debt log that you owe yourself $1000 plus interest by a certain date. If you have to take out a loan to pay back that $1000, then you cancel out the $1000 you owe yourself and add $1000 owed to somebody else.

    So when Social Security actually cashes in the trust funds, we can either borrow money to pay it back which won’t affect our current national debt value (the $14 trillion figure) in the slightest!

    Or, if we actually pay back those trust funds from general revenue, then it actually reduces national debt at a 1-to-1 rate on payout.

    Amazing how the actual math for that works out (which the myth article completely ignores), isn’t it?

  • 4. Dan  |  April 21st, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    This argument has been going on for decades. How long has the war on poverty been going on? And the liberals still say we aren’t spending enough.

  • 5. John Foust  |  April 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Decades? That darn Jesus!

  • 6. Debunked  |  April 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    I see your war on poverty and raise you one war on drugs.

    At least the war on poverty isn’t causing highly skewed demographics in the incarceration rates while costing tax payers untold billions being paid out to private prison-corporations and further hurting the income divide between the classes.

    Oh wait, so this means the war on drugs is a Republican supported program specifically engineered as a direct antithesis of the goals for the war on poverty. Son of a bitch!

  • 7. Dan  |  April 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    “At least the war on poverty isn’t causing highly skewed demographics in the incarceration rates while costing tax payers untold billions being paid out to private prison-corporations and further hurting the income divide between the classes.”

    I beg to differ. The war on poverty has caused the family in poor areas to all but disappear and this started before the war on drugs and cause other crimes. The drug problem is a large part the result of the war on poverty.

    And to John: What the hell are you talking about?

  • 8. John Foust  |  April 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    So those private companies running prisons… do they have any self-interest in increasing the number of inmates?

    Dan: How long have humans been arguing about whether and how to care for the poor, and what did Jesus say about it?

  • 9. Dan  |  April 25th, 2011 at 1:11 am

    Umm, john, maybe you don’t understand the court system. The people sent to prison are sentenced by a judge and some times a jury. A private prison has no say how many prisoners come their way. I do hope you learned your civics lesson.
    What would Jesus do about the poor? Didn’t he say something to the effect if you teach person to fish, that will last a lifetime, if you just give them handouts, you will do harm.
    The war on poverty relies on hand outs, not teaching.

  • 10. Debunked  |  April 25th, 2011 at 11:36 am

    By all means, Dan, find me where Jesus made that quote in the Bible. But before you look too hard, let me warn you that it is one of the most widely misquoted phrases attributed to Jesus.

    That said, I have no problems with that quote anyway. The problem is, conservatives don’t want to aid the poor through indirectly providing them education anymore than they want to aid them directly by providing them food or shelter. Or did you forget the assaults on the education system in the original article of this thread?

    Further, please find me a single location which upholds your claim “the war on poverty has caused the family in poor areas to all but disappear and this started before the war on drugs and cause other crimes.” After some searching, I can’t find a single respectable study (or for that matter, even a right wing think tank study) that even remotely claims that the war on poverty has even an inkling of correlation to an increase in drug use let alone that the war on poverty has caused an increase in drug use. So either you are making some grandiose claim based on something that isn’t easily found online or you are simply spouting out misinformation in the hopes that nobody would call you on it.

  • 11. Debunked  |  April 25th, 2011 at 11:37 am

    By all means, Dan, find me the location in the Bible that attributes that quote to Jesus. Oh, but before you look too hard, let me warn you that you won’t find it because he never said that.

    That said, I have no problems with that proverb anyway. The problem is, conservatives don’t want to aid the poor through indirectly providing them education (you know, teaching them how to fish) anymore than they want to aid them directly by providing them food or shelter. Or did you forget the assaults on the education system in the original article of this thread?

    Further, please find me a single location which upholds your claim “the war on poverty has caused the family in poor areas to all but disappear and this started before the war on drugs and cause other crimes.” After some searching, I can’t find a single respectable study (or for that matter, even a right wing think tank study) that even remotely claims that the war on poverty has even an inkling of correlation to an increase in drug use let alone that the war on poverty has caused an increase in drug use. So either you have access to information that isn’t easily found online or you are simply spouting out misinformation in the hopes that nobody would call you on it.

  • 12. Debunked  |  April 25th, 2011 at 11:44 am

    What what? I don’t recall double submitting – just some random wording edits. Possible to delete the first one?

  • 13. John Foust  |  April 25th, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Dan, it was a simple question. Does a privately-run prison have any motivation to increase the number of prisoners? What might they lobby for that would increase the number of people headed to prison?

  • 14. John Foust  |  April 25th, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you can sell him fishing equipment.” – Matthew 25.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta