Somehow we turned into a super power. Maybe it worked.
Woof,
I’ll be very generous and give you a small credit for using the term “maybe”.
Who do you think you’re kiddin’?
HG - 01:02pm on 02/14/2008
We put money into the
GI bill, education, (thank sputnik),
we supported orphans and widows, people out of work, allowed old people to live independent lives,
cured the sick , rehabilitated the broken, fed children and adults.
That’s how we progressed.
WOOF - 01:02pm on 02/14/2008
That’s how we progressed.
You only list the 25% of social spending that actually does something; what about the other 75% that is wasted? War on Poverty(no reduction in poverty).
Our Space Program wasn’t “social spending”, btw.
Even so, none of that spending produced progress toward our being a superpower. It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers, and they don’t get the benefit of any social spending; they pay for it, and succeed despite the drain on their resources.
robert108 - 01:02pm on 02/14/2008
That’s how we progressed.
A little conflation going on there Woof.
Socialized medicine or programs didn’t cure anyone. A free market and free people gave us the best health care on the planet. Charity has done far more for people than any social program the creates a dependent class wholly servile to democrats.
R108, is right. America’s success is based on achievement not the common good.
HG - 01:02pm on 02/14/2008
Woof: Furthermore, all of our social progress isn’t due to social spending; a great deal of it is due to the upward mobility of the free enterprise system, and the general overall increase in prosperity we generate, which benefits all, even the invaders.
You have twice failed to address the fact that govt social spending continues to increase faster than population growth, which is proof that it doesn’t work to cure any of the social problems that it claims to address. Even if it just kept pace with population growth, that would be evidence of failure. The only metric of success of social spending is that it shrinks over time, as it becomes less necessary.
That’s not happening.
robert108 - 01:02pm on 02/14/2008
It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers, and they don’t get the benefit of any social spending;
You sure they are two seperate groups?
Think medicine amazing?
Feds pump money into med schools, research, etc,
How bout that internet?
WOOF - 02:02pm on 02/14/2008
It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers,
And proud we are of all of them.
dannyboy - 03:02pm on 02/14/2008
You sure they are two seperate groups?
Yes; the achievers pay for the social spending; the “poor and downtrodden” collect it. Big difference.
It’s “separate”, btw.
robert108 - 03:02pm on 02/14/2008
This sounds like a good idea, remember wpa??? it got the country back to work How about hoover dam. This is what we need. To work for what you get. If there is a shortage like some people say, then why is the unemployment rate so high. I say no more hand outs, you work for what you get, get a reasonable wage, and watch how you spend it. Everything will work out fine.
Woof,
I’ll be very generous and give you a small credit for using the term “maybe”.
Who do you think you’re kiddin’?
We put money into the
GI bill, education, (thank sputnik),
we supported orphans and widows, people out of work, allowed old people to live independent lives,
cured the sick , rehabilitated the broken, fed children and adults.
That’s how we progressed.
You only list the 25% of social spending that actually does something; what about the other 75% that is wasted? War on Poverty(no reduction in poverty).
Our Space Program wasn’t “social spending”, btw.
Even so, none of that spending produced progress toward our being a superpower. It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers, and they don’t get the benefit of any social spending; they pay for it, and succeed despite the drain on their resources.
A little conflation going on there Woof.
Socialized medicine or programs didn’t cure anyone. A free market and free people gave us the best health care on the planet. Charity has done far more for people than any social program the creates a dependent class wholly servile to democrats.
R108, is right. America’s success is based on achievement not the common good.
Woof: Furthermore, all of our social progress isn’t due to social spending; a great deal of it is due to the upward mobility of the free enterprise system, and the general overall increase in prosperity we generate, which benefits all, even the invaders.
You have twice failed to address the fact that govt social spending continues to increase faster than population growth, which is proof that it doesn’t work to cure any of the social problems that it claims to address. Even if it just kept pace with population growth, that would be evidence of failure. The only metric of success of social spending is that it shrinks over time, as it becomes less necessary.
That’s not happening.
You sure they are two seperate groups?
Think medicine amazing?
Feds pump money into med schools, research, etc,
How bout that internet?
And proud we are of all of them.
Yes; the achievers pay for the social spending; the “poor and downtrodden” collect it. Big difference.
It’s “separate”, btw.
This sounds like a good idea, remember wpa??? it got the country back to work How about hoover dam. This is what we need. To work for what you get. If there is a shortage like some people say, then why is the unemployment rate so high. I say no more hand outs, you work for what you get, get a reasonable wage, and watch how you spend it. Everything will work out fine.