I think you got 'you' and 'I' confused when you wrote that sentence.

The operative word in both sentences being 'say'.

And properly administered, those sound like noble and worthwhile causes.

Well then, everybody's happy! You can sing the praises of the welfare state and promote the usefulnes of potentially useful programs, those of us who see what the welfare state has turned into in real life can continue to curse it as the abomination it has become, the politicians can continue to play both sides against each other as they go about their corrupt business, and the poor can continue to wallow in hopelessness!

Oops. Well, Almost everybody's happy...

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

aye - I have no compulsion to answer conform's last post...how you can finance HUGE social programs without taxing everyone else?

It is sad to think that people still want to promote collectivist programs despite the enormous real-world disasters that it created before.

Unless you're one of those collective(ing) individuals....Then you love the ideas of a welfare state.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Yeah, I would say nail on the head.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

And that is the crux of the argument.
Some people live in a theoretical world, the rest of us live in the world as it is.

I agree that welfare on paper as a safety-net is a wonderful thing - trouble is as soon as you apply realism to it - it is an idea that exacerbates the problem instead of helping it.

Just another example of liberals not having the ability to mix in facts with their rhetorical dreamland.

Socialist welfare-state policies are what enabled the first world to become the first world. How many third world countries have the level of socialist welfare-state policies of the first world?

Better implementation of welfare-state policies could help reduce or eliminate some forms of poverty. Our current socialist warfare-state policies will only adds more of the chaos form of anarchy that subsidizes the parent of revolution and crime.

Consider the example of Mexico. Would we have an illegal immigration problem with that state if they had sufficient welfare-state policies that paid people to stay out of the US labor market?

What?
Mexico? - Mexico has trouble because their government is horribly corrupt. They don't allocate to the poor because they accept America's handouts and pocket it for themselves and take paybacks from drug cartels. Mile for Mile there are more natural resources in Mexico than America - the ONLY reason Mexico is poor is because of the above.

We've covered this before - Repeating the same old fairy-tale wish soundbite won't make it so. It's the wealth resulting from first-world capitalist policies that enabled the implementation of some socialist-like programs. The third world has no effective comparable programs because they haven't instituted free-market capitalism and thus don't have the wealth to sustain such programs.

Poverty is like stupidity is like sadness. It's comparative and thus cannot be eliminated unless you either completely homogenize or completely eliminate the human race. Unless you mean you want to eliminate some forms of poverty by making other forms worse, in which case, what's the point?

No, we wouldn't. At least until the Mexican government collapsed under the massive debt they'd build up trying to fund such a program. Then things would probably be worse. Good plan.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

In other words, it is because Mexico doesn't have a socialist welfare-state that it still has a third world economy. Corruption is not necessarily a function of the economic model employed. However, how much corruption would Mexico have if they had a socialist welfare-state that paid people to stay out of the US labor market?

I have to disagree with you. Most third world countries have more anarchic economies than the US. What they don’t have is the socialist welfare-state policies that the US initiated in the last generation.

I said some forms of poverty. If we define poverty as a simple lack of income, then paying people an income would eliminate that form of poverty.

Do you mean like running massive deficits that will lead to a first world economy, instead of the general warfare? Building infrastructure is a form of wealth creation.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

So the answer to the immigration problem is to give the corrupt Mexican government even MORE money...- wow.

Not sure where you came up with That non-sequitur. (Beyond your fixation on the socialist-welfare state, of course.)

Hey! You got one right!

Tough call. My best guess would be even more, as government corruption is generally a function of how much cash-flow the government has, with increased bureaucratic complexity being another corrupting factor. Instituting large, expensive programs you advocate would mean increased governmental cash-flow and complexity, and thus more opportunities for corruption. As I said, good plan. Thanks.



Yes, that's true, and as such, serves to support my position. An operating free-market capitalist economy is not the same as an anarchic economy, as effective capitalism requires consistent rule of law, which is the opposite of anarchy.

Yes, we agree on that. Partly because they can't afford them and partly because their corrupt and/or tribal governments don't have the welfare of the overall populace at heart, so they wouldn't implement them if they Could afford them.

Fine. To what end?

Massive deficits do not necessarily lead to a first world economy, and more likely hinder that achievement. Building Useful, Effective infrastructure can Facilitate wealth creation, but that's not what you proposed - You proposed paying people to stay home and skip their swimming lessons. In any case, any governmental investments in infrastructure would most likely be plagued by corruption, and thus not likely to fit the 'useful and effective' criteria. (Not unlike a certain arctic bridge to nowhere.)


My only response to any more of your posts that contain the words 'general warfare' will be an implied request for a coherent, useable definition of the term until the request has been fulfilled.

(Democratic shades of TFBM, Batman!)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

What do you think of a hypothetical situation where the UN goes into relatively remote regions of third world countries and builds cities from scratch? Humanitarian assistance would be much easier to implement from any location that has access to modern infrastructure. Local labor could be used for local infrastructure development and would be unavailable for export to first world countries.

I merely asserted that, it is because Mexico doesn't have a socialist welfare-state that it still has a third world economy.

Would it really matter to us in the US, as long as Mexico was able to pay market participant to stay out of the US market for labor?

How do you get more consistent rule of law without a corresponding increase in socialism?

I proposed a policy that promotes the general welfare that pays people to not participate in the US market for labor. I also mentioned that Mexico does not have the socialist policies required in order to increase the level of infrastructure development that can enable a first world economy. Promoting the general welfare through welfare-state policies that include more infrastructure development could produce a first world economy in Mexico.

Mexico is a 3rd world poverty country because the government is corrupt. As I stated, mile for mile - there are more natural resources in Mexico than America, yet they do not exploit it, why? - because that would take money that the Mexican gov't pockets fr themselves. Especially local level government which has more akin to the Mafia than a governing body.
- again with the dream world. Give up a little on idealism and look at the situation as a reality.
...um America does it everyday.
Again - that is an unrealistic dream. Even America does not have enough funds to pay welfare to millions of Mexicans...can you not see how ludicrous this idea is??