Originally Posted by CBrown85
Well there's spending to the benefit of society and there's spending to the detriment of it. With my political ideology, which differs from yours, spending on social security, education, healthcare, assistance to the poor, among other things are for the betterment of people, while bullets, fighter jets, humvees, and carpet bombs are not.
Edit: or at least to the degree at which the cash is being spend. Mind you, not my country so I couldn't really care whether they do or don't, but presumably, better services in the US would probably equal better services in Canada via cheaper supply prices/fewer Americans taking advantage of our system, etc.
Even someone of your political stripe should be savvy enough to understand that the types of spending you listed are not necessarily going to the "betterment of people." For example, under "assistance to the poor," do we think that some welfare policy has not contributed to the destruction of the traditional family of those receiving welfare and that the intergenerational poverty is not in some way connected to the implementation of welfare practices?
Just one example to demonstrate that merely because money is spend in these areas does not mean it is improving society one wit.
(This should be good. With any luck, I will be criticizing welfare in this thread while defending changing it to straight cash transfers in the other thread. What a novel position to be in.)