Say Anything Blog

Margie: John Edwards lies; govt spending is an expense to the taxpayer, not an investment.  I wish govt social spending was an investment, but it’s not.  There is no proof that any social spending program returns more than it costs, by any measure.  That would make it an investment.  In fact, very few social spending programs have any scientific basis at all; they are merely vote-buying programs for the political class.  In the few cases where there have been studies to determine the benefit to society of any social spending programs, they have failed to meet any standards of any sort of improvement at all.
Example: I recently posted an article in the Reader Blogs about the research done on the forced-busing “diversity” programs, and they have had a negative effect, which anyone with common sense might have predicted.  Nevertheless, our children were harmed, and an obscene amount of money was wasted on such programs. 
If we’re going to do it intelligently, we have to do it on the basis of truth: social spending programs are welfare, and should be treated as such.  They should have rigorous means-testing, to assure that those who receive our tax money really need it, and to exclude those who merely seek a free ride.  Rigorous accounting is also a must, to eliminate wasteful bureaucracy.  In any case, social spending programs are never an investment, they are an expense.  We should get good value for our money.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Well Margie first of all I’m glad we agree that the spending needs to be reduced so that we pay down the national debt.

Now besides the Defense Department which consumes maybe 1/6th of the budget what are you going to cut.  Remember now that providing for the common defense is the #1 purpose of government.  And remember if you cut out the department of defense the general budget would still be spending more than it takes in.  (ie, not spending the Social Security ‘surplus’.

So how are you going to balance the budget while increasing your social spending?

Impliment limited, much needed social nets, accompanied by pay-backs from recipients as their salary rises

When are you going to pay the taxpayers back?

That sounds good, I’d predict it costs more to collect than you get back.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I’d predict it costs more to collect than you get back.

Exactly, TW; all social spending is welfare; not anything resembling an investment.  It’s just vote-buying at our expense.

In answer to Margie’s question, “Where should the money go?” My answer is that it should go wherever those who earned it want it to go.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

John Edwards says it is more important to invest…

You know, Margie, everytime some slick salesman wanted to separate my dear old Mother from some of her cash, he’d tell her what a good “investment” her purchase would be. That’s because “investment” sounds like a good thing - promising a return, whereas “spending” had so many negative connotations to it.

Margie: John Edwards lies

r108: How could you tell? Were his lips moving?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Well that’s about as American as you get, Robert, that the money should go whereever whoever earned it wants it to go. But who in that monkey cage we call Washington gets to decide what all of us want? Seems like I read the other day that it only took one Senator to put a hold on a bill that prevents it from even coming up for a vote. Sounds like a crazy way to do business to me.

How worried should we be about the national debt?  The budget deficit? And why or why not?

John Edwards, first and foremost, is a medical malpractice trail lawyer. He is vastly wealthy because he took people who had catestrophic medical mistakes during surgery or longterm care, ran their case through court, and kept 60% of the settlement as his “fee”. You would actually vote for this vampire? You would believe a single word that oozes out of his mouth, ever? If you are going to, or have in the past, vote for John"I channel dead babies in court” Edwards you have far worse problems than a lack of economics understanding.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Margie: Thanks for the compliment, as I consider myself an American, through and through.
Your reference to the “monkey cage” is right on the mark, so I would ask you how those “monkeys” got to be in charge of our money?  I think too many of us have been willing to give away our freedom for the promise of security.  The less money we send to Washington, the less power they have to restrict our freedom.
As far as the National Debt is concerned, ask yourself who owes what to whom?  In addition, who holds that debt?  You might find some very interesting answers to those two questions, one that may open your eyes a bit.
The “deficit” is simply the gap between what is spent and what is confiscated.  IMO, it is not as important as the overall spending by govt.  That is the real problem, not the amount of taxes they confiscate from us.
The political rhetoric about those two issues is designed to distract us from the real problem, which is govt social spending for vote-buying purposes.  They are trying to sell the idea that it is all our fault(the citizens).  It’s typical BS from the political class.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

This winding wilderness trail appears to lead straight back to conservative rhetoric without stopping by the wayside to visit the question. So the budget deficit does not matter, the national debt is even more obscurely owed and held by unknowns for surprising reasons. Got that. Answers all my questions.

It doesn’t matter so much how much they tax, just what they spend it on? O.K. Do you think we should be concentrating more on paying off the debt and spending less, or only if the spending is not going where you think it should?

I meant the compliment sincerely. I have no doubt that you feel a fierce love for this country and our way of life.

I am guinuinely confused. To me, if you owe $10.oo and pay 5.00 consistently, pretty soon you are in trouble and noone will let you spend ten anymore unless you show them your money first. Seems simple. How much longer can we continue to live like this before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down?

This winding wilderness trail appears to lead straight back to conservative rhetoric without stopping by the wayside to visit the question. So the budget deficit does not matter, the national debt is even more obscurely owed and held by unknowns for surprising reasons. Got that. Answers all my questions. My recommendation was for you to do the research for yourself, and obviously you haven’t done that.  The explanations for both subjects are beyond the scope of a blog comment, but if you make the effort, I guarantee you will find it enlightening.

It doesn’t matter so much how much they tax, just what they spend it on? I never said any such thing.  I thought it was obvious that if they spend less, they won’t need as much in taxes, but I guess that wasn’t obvious to you.  Can’t help that. O.K. Do you think we should be concentrating more on paying off the debt and spending less, or only if the spending is not going where you think it should?

I say again: The less the govt confiscates, the more freedom we have, and that is a good thing.  The national debt is money that is owed to the public by the political class, in reality, so it’s up to them to “pay it off”, which was my original point.  Now, if you know double entry bookkeeping, every liability is balanced by an asset, so the so-called “national debt” is really a transfer from us to the govt.  The real question should be: what did we get for it?
Once again, “the deficit” is the amount spending(by the govt) exceeds the amount they confiscate from us.  What did we get for that?  Like I said, the political class wants to throw up a smokescreen to conceal their thievery, and to imply that the debt and the deficit are somehow “our fault”.
When you spend your money, you get something for it, right?  We need to constantly ask our govt: “What are we getting for what we are spending?” If we don’t do that, it’s our fault, isn’t it?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Margie, the basic question you are asking is moot. You told us at the end of this post that you are going to vote for thisvampire anyway. You need to take an honest, indepth look at the people you think give a crap about your welfare. Because the do not. They only care about stripping you of every penny they can, attaining positions of political power, and stashing all your money in their numbered overseas bank accounts.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Sorry, posted my replies accidently on the threat’s blog.

I meant harm as in trying to exert undue pressure on the President or Congress. But if the debt is held by mostly Americans, that is indeed a relief. Thanks.  Hope we have some limits on how much of America’s debt is allowed to be purchased by foriegn interests, be they business or government, and certainly no scary nations like North Korea or Syria or Iran. Are there laws governing this?

I noticed once again that Margie ignores the questions that she can’t answer.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Such as, Whistler? I’ll try my best, if I can.

Well Margie first of all I’m glad we agree that the spending needs to be reduced so that we pay down the national debt.

Now besides the Defense Department which consumes maybe 1/6th of the budget what are you going to cut.  Remember now that providing for the common defense is the #1 purpose of government.  And remember if you cut out the department of defense the general budget would still be spending more than it takes in.  (ie, not spending the Social Security ‘surplus’wink.

So how are you going to balance the budget while increasing your social spending?

Impliment limited, much needed social nets, accompanied by pay-backs from recipients as their salary rises

When are you going to pay the taxpayers back?

That sounds good, I’d predict it costs more to collect than you get back.

My comment from a while ago.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Hope we have some limits on how much of America’s debt is allowed to be purchased by foriegn interests, be they business or government, and certainly no scary nations like North Korea or Syria or Iran. Are there laws governing this?

Of course there are, but as we learned from the UN and Saddam Hussein on the so-called “Oil for Food” program, it is very easy to hide the money and the source of money, so nations can devise ways of buying US debt.  This is not necessarily a bad thing; in the long run, it makes them dependent on our economic progress.
Don’t get me wrong; I think we should have laws governing the matter, and this is yet another reason for financial surveillance, which your Party doesn’t like.  Go figure.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Good questions. How about not making foreign aid more important than our own citizens? Stop paying farmers not to plant crops, if they still do. That’s really weird, I can see my Daddy, standing in his cotton fields, scratching his head over that one now.Stop subsidizing every museum, every Arts and Crafts program, every rare-worm habitat,every historical building, you get the point. Go after real pork,things Congressmen love to bring home to accolades in their states. Set priorities where they need to be, the survival of all our citizens through education an job training. MY favorite piece of fantasy pork? Free higher education for children of parents under a certain income level, with not much hope of that ever changing. Universally. Taxpayers to be repaid when these college graduates start making the kind of money in their chosen fields that they would not have been able to as high school graduates. But I guess there is only room for so many at the top. If we were all educated, who would be willing to mop the floors?

But I guess there is only room for so many at the top. If we were all educated, who would be willing to mop the floors?

Here’s where your Marxist ideology lets you down.  How do we pick cotton these days?  Our entire society is now at the stage where those who are regarded as living in poverty have a standard of living greater than the majority of the rest of the world’s people.  There is unlimited room in our system for prosperity, Margie, unless govt entitlement spending(not pork; that’s only a drop in the bucket) kills the goose who lays the golden eggs.
I do agree that foreign aid should be contingent on the proper behavior of the country receiving it.  I think that got derailed during the Cold War.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Well thanks for answering.

When it comes to matters like foreign aid I think the total is a pretty minor one.  But yeah I’d go for that.

I think the farm program lowers prices so a properly designed one can save a lot of tax money.  But you’re talking maybe 20 Billion spent there (probably what the foreign aid is).

I agree with a lot of the others that you say, but there’s not that much money.

How much money are you talking about spending Margie?

As far as your comment that there’s only that much room at the top.  Well of course that’s true if we measure everyone in comparison with eachother.

However if you measure progress in historical terms you’ll see that our poor live in many ways better than the rich did 100 years ago.  The biggest nutritional problem of the poor is obesity.  That’s unbelievable in historical terms.

So if the government get’s out of the way we’ll see that guy mopping the floor (most likely by remote control) making a living equivelent to $40,000 today.  Of course he’ll feel poor becaue the middle class will be that much richer.

Still that is progress, don’t you think?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Yes, it is, and I would like to sleep better in my nice warm bed, supported by Social Security,knowing that those people on the street had a chance. The mentally ill in hospitals where they belong, not some alley or jail, the drug addicts in treatment, the raggedy kids of a single parent whose “other” has skipped out with a guaranteed exit via a guaranteed college education, so that their kids won’t be ragged or hungry. And don’t tell me that if such people exist (wink) either their numbers are so small they are irrelavant to the big picture or they did this to themselves, why should the taxpayer bail out their kids? I say because it is not only the right thing to do but because it makes long term economic sense. Sorry, I get a little carried away sometimes. Guess it is time for my nap. Thanks for the conversation. You guys mean a lot to me and have a nice New Years Day.

Margie, you want those things but are unwilling to pay for them.  I would like good things to happen to those people but think that my money has been wasted and stolen by bureaucrats instead of doing that.

Now why in the world are you so willing to spend my money but not yours?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

MY favorite piece of fantasy pork? Free higher education for children of parents under a certain income level…

Reminds me of my favorite anecdote from the Kerry for President campaign. One of Kerry’s daughters had applied for a scholarship. And the closest I’ve ever come to class envy, was thinking that with Kerry’s senate salary and the Heinz Ketchup fortune, his daughter could have paid for her own education and that someone less fortunate might not.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Um PE:  The liberals claim they are stealing our money to give to the poor.  However the money usually doesn’t get to the poor, does it?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Because I don’t have any, that should be obvious, and just as obvious that if I did, they could have it. But guaranteed higher education below a certain income level would take a concerted effort by state, local and national government. If you could op out of such a program, would you tell them to spend your tax dollars on something else you felt was more necessary? Besides national defense, which we can all agree has to come first.

Later, All.

Always nice to advocate for something enourmously expensive that you have no intention on helping pay for.

By the way when it comes to higher education we’ve dumped in so much money into the system (supposedly to help the poor attend college) that the professors are making 2-3 times what they should.

Rather than helping the poor it’s made college instructors the rich.  (Now when you talk about college adminstraion you’re getting into the Robin Leach zone.)

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I say because it is not only the right thing to do but because it makes long term economic sense.

If the govt weren’t so greedy to live high on the hog off of our money, it might even make long-term economic sense.  That would only be true if the return at least equaled the expense, which almost never happens.  The other requirement would be that the use of govt programs be the best possible way to accomplish the goal.  We usually don’t consider that, because we have a virtual govt monopoly on social programs.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I think the farm program lowers prices so a properly designed one can save a lot of tax money.

TW: One bone to pick here: Farm subsidies(aka price supports) actually raise or maintain farm prices higher than they would be on a free market, in order to support an old American dream of the small independent farmer, who is generally too inefficient to survive without the govt help.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.