or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Keynesian Dead End
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Keynesian Dead End - Page 4

post #46 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
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.



No one is arguing against safety nets...just how wide they are.
post #47 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
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.)
post #48 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
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.)

I was speaking in broad black and white terms, details could obviously be argued for literally every policy, but I'm not in a nit-picking mood.
post #49 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
I was speaking in broad black and white terms, details could obviously be argued for literally every policy, but I'm not in a nit-picking mood.

I would submit you were speaking in such broad generalities as to render them meaningless. I mean, you've seen me criticize some areas of defense, but your statement placed all defense spending in opposition to "the betterment of the people." I hardly think the people would be served by rendering the US powerless too.

Sometimes, it's not nit picking to speak to things a bit more specifically.
post #50 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
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?


Interesting assertion--have any sites to support that welfare is causitive of intergenerational poverty? I would indeed presume that they would be highly correlated (depending on our definition of welfare policies)--causitive would be surprising, however. Would appreciate a share if you had information, as it'd make an interesting read.

I always presumed that intergenerational poverty was more a function of education shortfalls found in underprivileged communities, caused by both inferior education quality and, perhaps more importantly, by a comparative lack of sensory stimulation towards young underprivileged children versus their privileged counterparts.

Not exactly peer reviewed journal quality--but a pretty decent read on linkages between early childhood sensory stimulation and latter life learning capability.

http://www.gkff.org/userfiles/file/2...nyt_020707.pdf
post #51 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairholme_wannabe View Post
Interesting assertion--have any sites to support that welfare is causitive of intergenerational poverty? I would indeed presume that they would be highly correlated (depending on our definition of welfare policies)--causitive would be surprising, however. Would appreciate a share if you had information, as it'd make an interesting read.

I always presumed that intergenerational poverty was more a function of education shortfalls found in underprivileged communities, caused by both inferior education quality and, perhaps more importantly, by a comparative lack of sensory stimulation towards young underprivileged children versus their privileged counterparts.

Not exactly peer reviewed journal quality--but a pretty decent read on linkages between early childhood sensory stimulation and latter life learning capability.

http://www.gkff.org/userfiles/file/2...nyt_020707.pdf

You did note, of course, I said, "in some way connected," vs. applying direct causation? And that I said made a distinction between implementation vs. the policy itself?
post #52 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
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.
You have constructed an interesting little trap here. You claim that a fiscal conservative is disingenuous if he doesn't support defense cuts because they are a black hole according to your ideology. You then say that you don't consider entitlements to be a black hole according to your ideology, so therefore their diminution is not required as a measure of fiscal responsibility. So what I take from this is that in order to be a fiscal conservative without being hypocritical, he has to accede to your version of the facts, while you also get to live by your version of the facts. Right?
post #53 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
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.

Does anyone know where I can get one of these carpet bombs? My carpet is starting to get a bit ratty and I'd like to replace it.
post #54 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
You did note, of course, I said, "in some way connected," vs. applying direct causation? And that I said made a distinction between implementation vs. the policy itself?

It did indeed take note. It still seems that any connection (either via policy or implementation) would be rather marginal. That said, I should have better acknowledged your nuances.
post #55 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
You have constructed an interesting little trap here. You claim that a fiscal conservative is disingenuous if he doesn't support defense cuts because they are a black hole according to your ideology. You then say that you don't consider entitlements to be a black hole according to your ideology, so therefore their diminution is not required as a measure of fiscal responsibility. So what I take from this is that in order to be a fiscal conservative without being hypocritical, he has to accede to your version of the facts, while you also get to live by your version of the facts. Right?

Well there's only one version of the facts and if mine are wrong I've got some reading to do. Go back and read my post, you're drawing a fair amount of conclusions- but yes, I believe spending on social services is better than spending excess on the military. Not saying, however, that all of the money taken from the military should all go into social services or that all of these social services are of equal value to each other. It's just interesting that people comment about how much debt is racked up in the US and ignore the fact that defense spending is several times the amount of all of the US threat states' budgets combined. Personally, I would prefer my tax dollars going towards a fucked up entitlement programs than a foreign war or Blackwater. Luckily for me, it does.
post #56 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Well there's only one version of the facts and if mine are wrong I've got some reading to do. Go back and read my post, you're drawing a fair amount of conclusions- but yes, I believe spending on social services is better than spending excess on the military. Not saying, however, that all of the money taken from the military should all go into social services or that all of these social services are of equal value to each other. It's just interesting that people comment about how much debt is racked up in the US and ignore the fact that defense spending is several times the amount of all of the US threat states' budgets combined. Personally, I would prefer my tax dollars going towards a fucked up entitlement programs than a foreign war or Blackwater. Luckily for me, it does.

I think the Blackwater mention tells a lot here.
post #57 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Personally, I would prefer my tax dollars going towards a fucked up entitlement programs than a foreign war or Blackwater. Luckily for me, it does.

THIS. Poverty in Canada is virtually nonexistent. Here in the States, we've been this close to winning the War on Poverty for almost sixty years now. If we could just get more funding for it, we'd finally win.

All jingoistic snark aside, I strongly agree with you that the defense budget should be scaled back significantly.
post #58 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Well there's only one version of the facts and if mine are wrong I've got some reading to do. Go back and read my post, you're drawing a fair amount of conclusions- but yes, I believe spending on social services is better than spending excess on the military. Not saying, however, that all of the money taken from the military should all go into social services or that all of these social services are of equal value to each other. It's just interesting that people comment about how much debt is racked up in the US and ignore the fact that defense spending is several times the amount of all of the US threat states' budgets combined. Personally, I would prefer my tax dollars going towards a fucked up entitlement programs than a foreign war or Blackwater. Luckily for me, it does.
There may only be one set of facts, but your construction leaves only one possible analysis of those facts, and as such is not going to lead to a fruitful debate of any kind. Defense being a black hole is not a fact, it is an opinion about some facts. Same for entitlements being good. If one is forced to work within your opinions, which is how you set the scenario, one is likely to come up with opinions like yours.
post #59 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post
THIS. poverty in Canada is virtually nonexistent. in the States, we've been this close to winning the War on Poverty for almost sixty years now. If we could just get more funding for it, we'd finally win.

All jingoistic snark aside, I strongly agree with you that the defense budget should be scaled back significantly.

Please tell me my sarcasm meter is on the fritz.
post #60 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
There may only be one set of facts, but your construction leaves only one possible analysis of those facts, and as such is not going to lead to a fruitful debate of any kind. Defense being a black hole is not a fact, it is an opinion about some facts. Same for entitlements being good. If one is forced to work within your opinions, which is how you set the scenario, one is likely to come up with opinions like yours.

I believe I was told this is nitpicking.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Keynesian Dead End