Budget

Obama's Budget Baloney

On this track, we are doomed.

|

David Lienemann/White House

This week, President Barack Obama proposed a budget "that will create new jobs in manufacturing and energy and innovation and infrastructure, and we'll pay for every dime of it by cutting unnecessary spending, closing wasteful tax loopholes!"

What? I must have fallen asleep and woken up in 2008. That could not be something he'd claim after five years in office—years after making similar claims and not delivering on them. Does he think we have no memory, or that we're just ignorant? Are these just poll-tested phrases that work because most voters are too busy to pay attention?

This one smug sentence alone is amazing in its confidence and deceit. Let's break it down:

The president says he will "create new jobs." 

Politicians always say that, but this president says it especially often. Do voters not know that government has no money of its own, so when politicians "create" jobs, they take money from the private sector, the only group that creates real jobs?

I emphasize "real" because, of course, politicians can create jobs by funding companies like Solyndra, hiring more staff or paying people to dig holes and fill them up. But those jobs don't last or create real wealth. Politicians can't create real employment by taxing people and giving the money to others.

This post-recession economic recovery is the slowest ever. Usually, after a recession, the cost of labor drops and companies rush to hire so they can profit as the economy improves. This time, employers looked at a thousand new regulations, unknowable new rules and taxes coming from Obamacare, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Labor Department, and so on. They decided: "I better not try."

May I hire interns to see if I like them before offering them long-term jobs? No. It may not be legal to employ interns anymore.

May I build a pipeline? Maybe. But the Environmental Protection Agency must approve. And state utilities. And state environmental officials. And the State Department. And the White House. And… who knows whom else? We might get permission in a year, or three years, or five, or we may never be allowed to build. Maybe instead I'll invest in a country where the rules are predictable and understandable.

The president says he will "create new jobs in manufacturing."

Manufacturing? Don't voters know that service jobs are just as real and good? Creating software, movies and medical innovation is just as valuable as manufacturing and often more comfortable for workers. Most parents want their kids to get jobs in offices or medical centers rather than mines or factories.

The president also says he will "create new jobs in … energy."

Don't people remember Solar One, Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, etc., and the billions lost? That the private sector is better at developing new forms of energy than politicians? That the boom in cleaner, cheaper natural gas came in spite of politicians, not because of them?

The president says he will "create new jobs in … infrastructure."

Did voters already forget that the last "shovel-ready" jobs didn't materialize? That billions went to politicians' cronies?

The president will pay for his new spending "by cutting unnecessary spending."

Give me a break. The president has had five years, two of which he was supported by a Democratic Congress, to cut "unnecessary spending." Even today's proposed shrinking of the size of the military to pre-World War II levels (which probably won't happen) isn't a cut. Obama's new budget proposes increasing Pentagon funds by $28 billion. The president even backed off from his earlier commitment to use more realistic cost-of-living adjustments when calculating Social Security payments.

Most annoying, the president brags that he has "reduced the deficit at the fastest rate in 60 years." But that's only if compared to his and former President George W. Bush's blowout stimulus of 2008. Much of the deficit reduction came from spending cuts (sequestration), which the president himself opposed, forced by Republicans. And his 2015 budget proposes $56 billion more spending than he and Congress had agreed to earlier.

Our debt will soon explode because baby boomers are about to retire. On this track, we are doomed.

Advertisement

NEXT: Video: Juggalos vs. the FBI: Why Insane Clown Posse Fans are Not a Gang

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “By cutting unneccessary spending”

    I thought the only way to fix government money problems was to take all the rich peoples money. What gives?

    1. That was the next clause:

      …”closing wasteful tax loopholes!”
      Like the “loophole” that allows you to keep some of the money you’ve earned.

    2. Silly Rabbit. Spending cuts are for individuals.

      There is no “unnecessary” spending in Government.

    3. I looked at this article hoping to get an online coupon for some government-subsidized cheap lunch meat. Guess it’s bread and water for dinner tonight.

  2. Don’t people remember Solar One, Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, etc., and the billions lost?

    Don’t worry, they’ll surely get the right Top Men in charge. This time. What could possibly go wrong?

  3. Don’t people remember Solar One, Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, etc., and the billions lost? That the private sector is better at developing new forms of energy than politicians? That the boom in cleaner, cheaper natural gas came in spite of politicians, not because of them?

    Why, Tony was just here yesterday saying a few trillion will get us fusion tomorrow!

    1. The saddest part is even if that were true, he has no idea how much a fusion power generation system would cost to maintain.

      1. I wish people would get it through their heads that even if government can do something, like send men to the Moon, that doesn’t mean that it can do so cheaply, efficiently, or even expensively for the long term. Leaving aside the political biases that make the stated mission (e.g., sending men into orbit) secondary to providing jobs to certain districts or enriching donors and/or politicians themselves.

        When we have fusion power, it may come from a state-supported lab, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have accomplished the task for billions less. Ditto for moonbases, etc.

        1. I wish people would get it through their heads that even if government can do something, like send men to the Moon, that doesn’t mean that it can do so cheaply, efficiently, or even expensively for the long term.

          But ProL, they assure us every time it’s the cheapest & most efficient method to do anything. Why do you hate ROADZ/CHILDRUN/OLD PPL?

          1. Couldn’t we try the free market for a year or something?

    2. Ha! Earth gets clean free fusion power all the time!

  4. Exhibiting know-how and innovation, U.S. manufacturers are adding to their payrolls and economic growth across the nation. We have identified 19 states where manufacturing is leading the way…

    According to the Institute of Supply Management (ISM), American manufacturing continues to improve. The ISM recently reported that manufacturing activity expanded in January 2013 for the second consecutive month and that the overall national economy grew for the 44th consecutive month.

    http://www.areadevelopment.com…..5542.shtml

    Two huge plants with 2000+ employees are opening near where I live (Caterpillar and Baxter Healthcare). Manufacturing output is at an all time high and US exports are at record levels.

    I know, I know, the media narrative of SHITTY must be maintained to get a white GOP president back in DC.

    1. We’ll see how that Caterpillar plant actually works out. An engineer friend of mine applied there, and they offered him less than he made his first year out of school, in the 80’s.

    2. “I know, I know, the media narrative of SHITTY must be maintained to get a white GOP president back in DC.”

      Go fuck your daddy, you slimy turd.

    3. Oh, and shitpile, two numbers to keep in mind:

      8%! That’s not ten percent, like one-in-ten, it’s EIGHT fucking percent!

      And 6.6% The same unemployment rate we had before your fave lying bastard spent 5 years screwing up the economy.

      1. A better barometer is the labor participation rate.

      2. AS opposed to the glorious economy GW left us

    4. Wasn’t the estimated GDP for the next quarter just revised down from 3.2 to 2.4?

      Can you pick me a cherry too?

      8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

    5. “The ISM recently reported that manufacturing activity expanded in January 2013 for the second consecutive month ”

      two months in a row of growth ?

      Wow. The Fed had better put the brakes on this runaway growth before inflation runs rampant.

      The fact that after 5 years under this administration that 2 months of growth in a row is brag worthy by sycophants of Team Obama is indeed a sad state of affairs.

      1. Two months? That’s about 8 weeks you know.

        1. How many ?

          1. I always round down.

            1. Close enough for government work.

              As a matter of fact I think that the magic number 8 should be enacted in law as a satisfactory floor to be used to gauge the effectiveness of any government policy.

      2. How about 17 out of the last 18 quarters

    6. It’s going so great that a whole 1k manufacturing jobs were added in February!
      http://www.adpemploymentreport…..y-2014.gif

      1. An GW LOST over 3 million manufacturing jobs, even BEFORE he crashed the economy. Then he lost us another 2 million.

        Compared to that, I would say any growth in that sector is pretty damn good.

    7. Anecdotal evidence and then claiming output is at an all time high like it is a function of government interference and not technological advances in efficiency.

    8. According to the Institute of Supply Management (ISM), American manufacturing continues to improve. The ISM recently reported that manufacturing activity expanded in January 2013 for the second consecutive month and that the overall national economy grew for the 44th consecutive month.

      This is normal. Industry improves to reduce cost, increase output, and consequently, to improve profitability. Our economy always grows–expect when it doesn’t, then we call it a recession. Growth is normal–what is abnormal is the extremely slow growth under this president. This paragraph essentially describes normal capitalism. It give no recommendation whatsoever to the Obama administration.

      What I don’t understand is how you can swallow this line of shit. Either you are uncommonly ignorant, or you just root for Team Blue no matter how badly they do. I’m going with the latter.

      1. Oh, I think Shriek is pretty good clearly both.

  5. The budget has also omitted funding for dredging the Savannah river to allow for the port to accommodate larger ships, after being all but promised personally by Joe Biden. Candidates Jason Carter and Michelle Nunn are making excuses, when they might win more votes if they’d just admit that we’ve been lied to.

    1. Doesn’t congress allocate funds for those things?

  6. Are these just poll-tested phrases that work because most voters are too busy to pay attention?

    No, they are the rehashed phrases of an administration too stupid to come up with anything else, and with supporters too stupid to care. Or at least they assume that about their supporters. And they’re right.

  7. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. I used to like Stossel too. When he did actual investigative reporting. Now all he does is repeat the lines of the people that pay him.

  8. His proposals are guaranteed to be a success simply because there is no metric for failure. Even if his policies result in half the people in this country losing their jobs, going broke and starving to death, he will point to the uptick in employment among grave-diggers as proof that his policies have worked. Don’t like the 50% unemployment rate? Blame the Republicans who didn’t let Obama fully enact his policy proposals – and besides, just imagine how bad things would be if Obama had done nothing!

    Kinda like how I was told in 2008 that if I didn’t vote for Obama the economy was going to go into the toilet and stay there. Well, I didn’t vote for Obama and look what happened. It’s all my fault.

  9. Whereas the libertarian plan, based entirely in “morals,” mind you, somehow also promise to create economic utopia: take money from the poor and give to the rich. A plan so brilliant only a retarded baboon could have dreamed it up.

    Just in case anyone forgot what you guys actually propose as an alternative.

    1. Eh, you’re not even trying anymore.

      1. The point is you guys never tried to begin with.

        Stick to drugs and hookers. Everything else you guys believe is bullshit and everyone knows it but you.

        1. I know, just a few more trillion green pieces of paper from utopia. Why I won’t listen, who knows.

          1. I never promised utopia. Only you guys spend more than fleeting moments during the day thinking of perfect worlds. What you call political philosophy I call being 12 and thinking how cool it would be to live in the United Federation of Planets.

            1. Tony, your entire political philosophy is trying to create the perfect world through intervention in natural states of being.

              And besides, how many things has Star Trek been right on? The show is almost prophetic considering we have even shown that the warp drive is technically possible.

            2. What’s the definition of insanity again? Oh yeah, “repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”.

              Let’s try for even more trickle down economics than we already have. Our billionaire masters don’t have enough cash yet.

              I bought into Reagan’s line over 30 years ago, and even he and his advisers admitted to failure before he left office (They even wrote economic papers about it). But the current crop of my parties politicians (yes I am still a Republican) distort and repeat the same lies over and over, making all of you simpletons believe that it actually worked.

        2. Tony|3.5.14 @ 1:07PM|#
          “The point is you guys never tried to begin with.”

          This guy claims some sort of education.
          ‘Jo mama’ ain’t gonna hack it, slimeball.

    2. aww…. poor Tony. I know a nice corner you can cry into.

    3. Tony|3.5.14 @ 12:55PM|#
      “Whereas the libertarian plan, based entirely in “morals,” mind you, somehow also promise to create economic utopia”…

      No, you stupid shit; one more lie.
      What if promises to is only a hundred times better than your fave murderous system.
      Not perfect, just at least 100 times better. And if you don’t understand that, why I’ll be more than happy to buy you a one-way ticket to NK.
      They’ll be happy to get a limy apologist.

      1. But your plan is still to give money to rich people and take it from poor people, right?

        1. *Everyone stands up and recites*

          Not taking is giving and not giving is taking.

          1. See, I told you. It’s a moral thing and also somehow a macroeconomic plan. Of course take the moral nonsense out of it and it is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I mean, it’s your plan, the principal reason for your existence, you might as well own it.

        2. Tony|3.5.14 @ 1:17PM|#
          “But your plan is still to give money to rich people and take it from poor people, right?”

          You should ‘plan’ on a remedial reading class at a community college near you. fuckwit.

        3. Produce one example of someone arguing that.

          1. I’m asking for someone to deny it.

            1. Deny you’re a child molester.

              1. I’ve never molested a child. There.

                Now deny that your jobs plan is to give tax breaks to rich people and gut social services.

                Just like your education plan, your healthcare plan, your poverty plan, and your plan for everything else?

                1. Oh no, we’re not playing this game. I’m not going to deny every strawman you care to conjure. I’ll repeat:

                  Produce one example of libertarians advocating taking money from poor people.

                  1. Tell me what you would like to do with food stamps and then I’ll have produced one.

                    1. I’d like to trade them for crack or heroin.

        4. If you’re stupid enough to believe/spout that, you’re obviously too stupid to respond to again. There’s no point debating with a moron.

        5. You fucking illiterate dipshit, the plan is to let the people keep what they earn legitimately, no matter their prior income.

          You might claim that much income is illegitimate, which is true, but you are so fucking stupid that you can’t see the illegitimacy came from government interference through cronyism in the first fucking place.

          1. Begging the question. What counts as legitimate is entirely defined in law. My concern is not what people “earn.” People have managed to find ways to make money via trade in every decent mixed economy on earth. My concern is with people’s needs. I even think that once people’s basic needs are taken care of, a more sophisticated form of capitalism emerges in which people are freed to take risks without having to fear starvation and death as a consequence of failure.

            1. Tony:

              What counts as legitimate is entirely defined in law.

              That’s completely arbitrary. Legalism isn’t a serious concept for legitimacy for anyone who gives it a moment of thought.

    4. Tony,

      I’d say a general idea would be to allow the free market to work without too much gov’t interference – with just enough regulation to promote transparency, accountability, and preventing conflicts of interest and exploitation. The gov’t doesn’t always HAVE to DO something. The gov’t shouldn’t generally create jobs, but provide an environment where jobs will create themselves based on the wants and needs of the citizens, supply/demand, etc.

      1. The point is what specific policy will “provide an environment will jobs will create themselves.” You guys have anything to offer besides making life easier on the rich and corporations and harder on the poor?

        1. Well, if you want specifics, would you mind giving me a specific example of helping the rich/corporations while hurting the poor?

        2. Specific policy that would have an incredible effect on job creation:

          Remove government permission to do business in the first place. Perhaps you should have read the article, moron.

          1. is tony aware that “the rich” got rich by making things affordable for ALL people, including lower income people? Which is an income effect that creates wealth in real terms?

            1. Tony has no idea what wealth actually is, and how the free market has expanded it exponentially. He is only capable of looking at monetary ratios that are “unfair” because equality and feelz.

              Even the point that Rockefeller and JP Morgan couldn’t have combined their vast sums of wealth to create an Xbox One is lost on him. It just doesn’t click, which is why I’m pretty sure he is mentally retarded. Most people have an excuse because they are simply ignorant and haven’t been subjected to truth and logic in their lives, but Tony has no such excuse.

              1. When I say vast sums of wealth for Morgan and Rockefeller, I mean for their day. Their wealth is absolutely pitiful by today’s standards for even the poorest in the U.S.

    5. Here’s another valuable insight to your psyche.
      Libertarianism doesn’t base it’s plan entirely on morals. Libertarianism does stress personal responsibility.
      Either you’re, being dishonest, too stupid to know the difference or are too lazy to come up with a decent argument, or a combination of all three.

      1. It’s the basic flaw of libertarian economics. It’s obsessed with its (very faulty) moral underpinnings. What does “personal responsibility” mean? Obviously, it means less social support for poor people. Curiously, it never seems to mean billionaires have to give up state protection of their property.

        You don’t think it’s a strange moral system that requires the state to protect the luxuries of the rich but do absolutely nothing about the basic survival needs of the poor?

        1. Curiously, it never seems to mean billionaires have to give up state protection of their property.

          Curiously, we advocate for that same protection for poor people. You know, the people who in the absence of a state wouldn’t be able to hire their own private security and who are far likelier to be victims of crime. Just more evidence that we hate them, right?

          1. Poor people’s interests are weighed more heavily toward basic survival than property protection. But for some completely arbitrary reason, it’s legitimate to use government force to rectify the loss of a rich person’s Bentley, but not the absence of a poor person’s meal.

            1. But it’s Libertarians that base their entire economic philosophy on morals, right? I mean, that poor person is entitled to sit on his ass all day, and then when he’s hungry he can just walk into some rich guy’s house and steal his food. That is what you’re advocating. And the grounds for this? Why, it’s moral. Such an immature philosophy.

              1. No wonder you believe in bullshit, you’re completely confused about what the alternative actually is. Some might call this a strawman.

                Being taxed is not the equivalent of being stolen from. Even the most direct policy of transferring wealth down is no different in principle from being taxed to pay for soldiers and tanks. Government’s job is to redistribute resources for social purposes.

                You guys take the completely arbitrary and completely immoral stance that it’s OK to use this process to protect the luxuries of the rich, but it’s not OK to use this same process to see to the basic needs of the poor. Do you deny that?

                1. Tony:

                  Even the most direct policy of transferring wealth down is no different in principle from being taxed to pay for soldiers and tanks. Government’s job is to redistribute resources for social purposes.

                  Well, paying soldiers and tanks is different from transferring wealth, isn’t it?

                  You might as well say, “Hiring a gardner to tend my garden is no different in principle from hiring a hitman to kill someone. Their job is to do what I like.”

                  Really? Sounds more you’re just assuming everything the government does is equivalent, so why not do whatever you want with it? Which is jut another form of question begging; it’s assumed that everything is just as legitimate as everything else. As if that’s not an outlandish assumption to start from.

                  1. Fine, great, but you have to do one thing for me: defend taxing and redistribution to pay for defending the luxuries of the rich, while being against doing the same to protect the interests of the poor. On the merits. Not because one is evil socialism and the other isn’t, because they’re both socialism.

                    1. Tony:

                      Fine, great, but you have to do one thing for me: defend taxing and redistribution to pay for defending the luxuries of the rich, while being against doing the same to protect the interests of the poor.

                      I have no interest in defending strawmen from you.

                      Put the strawmen on trial all you want, oh happy inquisitor.

        2. Obviously, it means less social support for poor people.

          Obviously. I mean, it’s not like government services have been crowding out private charity in western countries for decades or anything.

          1. ^This

            Tony believes that all old people were forced into the street before we had social security. He believes the poor starved to death before welfare and food stamps.

            Of course, he will probably refute that by taking data from the Great Depression and the Great Depression only.

          2. or that since we launched the war on poverty, we have never gotten poverty lower than like 11% in 1973, even though poverty was dropping like a stone after world war II until the war on poverty-BUT THE INTENTIONS DAMN IT! WHY YOU HATE INTENTIONS, INTENTIONS ARE ALL THAT MATTER!

            1. http://www.economicsjunkie.com…..s-decline/

              look a picture and everything Tony

              1. 9% sorry

              2. I love that chart! It proves liberals right about everything. Notice how the poverty rate has never gotten back to the heights of the Great Depression? I wonder why that could be. It also seems to suggest that Democratic presidents are better.

                1. Tony:

                  I love that chart! It proves liberals right about everything.

                  Your standards of evidence are amazing.

                2. Slope. Trend. Correlation. Nah, we don’t need those. We have FEELZ!

                3. Democrats: we’re not as bad as the Great Depression.

          3. Why doesn’t it occur to you that the reason you are wrong is because, at some point, unicorns always make their entrance. If private charity were sufficient to maintain a low-poverty society, nobody would have ever seen a need for social services in the first place. Plus I’d rather a secular, regularized system be in place than have to depend on my local Jesus cult, should I ever have a run of bad luck. Of course you guys who believe in the freewheeling risky creative destruction of capitalism never assume that you might have some crappy luck and be thankful for a safety net.

            1. Tony:

              If private charity were sufficient to maintain a low-poverty society, nobody would have ever seen a need for social services in the first place.

              Why do you assume that if the government does something, it must come out of need? That’s question begging.

              Obviously we needed to invade Vietnam, because, otherwise, we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place

              Obviously we need the post office to deliver things to people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have created it in the first place.

              By this line of reason, government needs to do everything it ever does, because, otherwise, why would it have done so?

              Pure question begging.

              1. I always wondered why they pay their employees to beat and cage people. The Broken Cranium Effect.

            2. No moron, it’s because the charity of private citizens and organizations wasn’t going to put flatscreens in the living room of their Section 8 housing. It’s like you think poverty somehow prevents greed.

              And if you don’t think proggie liberalism is a religion you are even stupider than you let on. I guess you’ve that going for you.

              1. Always with the urban housing and electronics. Never the rural tornado bait. Gee, I wonder what motivates your politics.

        3. Tony|3.5.14 @ 1:42PM|#
          …”What does “personal responsibility” mean?”…
          A moral retard like you wouldn’t have a clue.

          1. “Personal responsibility”Is obviously one of those dog whistle racist terms.

        4. I think we should change the name of that statue that the French gave us from Lady Liberty to Lady “Social Justice”.

          Would that make the Tony happy ?

          After all, it’s all about making progs “feelz good”, isn’t it ?

          Because when progs “feelz good” we know the country is on the right track, even if the track leads over a cliff.

          1. “The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the ego of the elites”

            Thomas Sowell

            1. “A man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.”

              Ayn Rand

              1. Tony|3.5.14 @ 4:23PM|#
                “A man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.”
                Ayn Rand

                Yes, and? Do you dispute that? If so, what do you propose?

                1. That Rand is a discredited Romantic and that human progress more often than not is achieved by cooperative action.

  10. “Does he think we have no memory, or that we’re just ignorant?” asks Stossel.

    Yes. He has nothing but contempt for his inferiors. As well as his supporters.

  11. Does he think we have no memory, or that we’re just ignorant?

    Yes, and yes.

  12. Tony,

    How exactly do Libertarians take poor people’s money and give it to rich people. If they are porr wouldn’t they not have money in the first place?

    1. Leftists believe that wealth exists already, they don’t think it’s the default state of the human race. Therefore their narrative necessitates an idiotic causal chain and effect that states that someone is poor because someone else (white male most likely) took the money from them. The fact that most of the world’s population throughout most of history has lived in abject poverty does not seem to phase them in this belief.

      1. Sadness. To go through life thinking wealth is money and economics is a zero sum game.

    2. Not much, but you guys are sure on the case about what little they do have in the form of social services (evil handouts).

      See, taking stuff away from poor people motivates them to work harder, while giving stuff to rich people is what motivates them to do the same. It may sound like a complete contradiction, but it’s actually morality!

      1. Who’s taking away anything from poor people. The welfare system is basically designed to take from the middle class/ rich and give it to those who are poor.Like I said, how can anything be taken from the poor when they are by definition poor?

        I’ve seen family members and people on the Southside of Chicago lives being subsidized by the government thus destroying any incentive to make their lives much better. I think most libertarians here would probably just grumble if our social entitlement system was a means to uplift people out of poverty rather then a means to subsidize people’s lives.

        1. Okay so let’s make it more generous so that it’s actually capable of doing that. As it stands even people working full time can be in poverty in this country. I would suggest that it’s not the meager subsistence payments that cause the social problems you’re talking about, but the existing poverty.

          1. While we’re at it, let’s give it to everyone also. Economic justice is not just unless it’s equally applied.

          2. So your standard is that all people working full time must be middle class?

  13. they do think*

  14. Any program that spends that much money will create new jobs. The question becomes will it do it efficiently and will the jobs be productive enough to be self supporting in the long run. That is where the Obama administration has failed miserably.

  15. The democrats love that saying “If you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed”. This POTUS must really honor that saying because its been going strong for five years. This is going to be a wonderful summer.

  16. Whenever Tony jumps in about the poor not getting enough from the government, just mention the fact that government spending (federal, state, and local) on anti-poverty programs is well over $900 billion, which does NOT include Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment benefits. Dividing that by the poorest 15% of the U.S. population (around 46.5 million people) is just below $20,000 per person. A poor family of four would get nearly $80,000 on average in anti-poverty assistance.

    Why on earth should the government spend more money?

    Link: http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..overty-won

  17. Raising the eligibility age for medicare and marginally slashing projected increase in entitlement spending = “You want to gut social services!”

    The country’s going broke, and places like California is like a tech collapse away resembling Detroit.

  18. Tony is right. Libertarianism is a moral code. It believes in the moral superiority of individual liberty and individual justice. Tony’s philosophy is also a moral code. It believes in the moral superiority of forced servitude and injustice for all.

    No society is 100% libertarian or 100% socialist. Societies closer to the libertarian ideology are the great success stories when it comes to the well being of it’s citizens and of the world as a whole. Societies closer to the Marxist socialist ideology have brought about the greatest suffering this planet has ever seen. Millions purged and untold millions more sapped of their productive capability.

    I think the vast majority of people from all political perspectives agree that there are individuals that need charity to live. We differ on how best to help these people. I believe private charity does both a more just and economical job of doling out charity than government. Just, in that it better identifies who is truly needy from those that are merely gaming the system, as well as just in the way the help is volunteered rather than coerced. Justice is not served when a capable lazy man is fed nor is it served when a disabled man steals food from his neighbor. Justice comes when the disabled man asks for help and the able bodied man willingly feeds him.

    1. Why can’t charities be gamed?

      You know full well that having no guaranteed collective safety net will leave many people SOL, and it won’t be a remotely fair distribution of who is and isn’t taken care of. I think it’s quite unjust to leave the safety net in the hands of churches and other private interests who can turn away people for whatever reason they want.

      You guys are trying to sell capitalism as a virtuous meritocratic system, so you’ve got to figure out how to minimize the role of luck and parentage, otherwise you’re advocating for nothing but hereditary privilege and hereditary poverty. The only thing that distinguishes your system from pre-modern feudal societies is that you insist there will be unicorns in yours.

      1. Tony:

        You guys are trying to sell capitalism as a virtuous meritocratic system, so you’ve got to figure out how to minimize the role of luck and parentage, otherwise you’re advocating for nothing but hereditary privilege and hereditary poverty.

        Right. Because nothing destroys hereditary privilege and poverty like a strong ruling class with enormous power.

        The only thing that distinguishes your system from pre-modern feudal societies is that you insist there will be unicorns in yours.

        Because, clearly, adopting libertarian policies would produce an agrarian, pre-industrial system of decentralized lords, ruling over peasants. Just like the 1800’s.

        You’re like an energizer bunny of strawmen, ad hominems, and question begging, ad nauseum: you just keep going and going.

        Don’t get bored trotting out the same fallacious arguments over and over again? I get bored reading them.

        You’re like an inquisitor, constantly trying to put the libertarians that live rent free inside your head, on straw.

        Burn the heretics, Tony. Burn them. Burn those strawmen with your flamethrower of nasty ad hominems.

        1. “would produce an agrarian, pre-industrial system of decentralized lords, ruling over peasants. Just like the 1800’s”

          That’s what we have now.

  19. Of course private charities can be gamed. No system is perfect but the goal is to find the best. Private charities are inherently less prone to waste, fraud, and abuse than a government monopoly charity. Competition for limited donations guarantees a system of closer oversight of each charity case, thereby also insuring more just distribution of help.

    My brother in law is a perfect real world example. He makes $13/hr. His significant other makes $16/hr. They have one child. They have a very middle class income. Every year he gets laid off in the winter. He chooses to go on foods stamps and unemployment rather than finding another $13/hr job, of which there is an abundance in his area, because he is lazy. He is both physically and mentally capable of work. I would submit that he is the rule rather than the exception in our government charity system. If he were forced to rely on private charity he would be asked to justify his need as their limited resources cannot be wasted on those who are undeserving such as he is. This is a much more fair outcome for all involved than the government charity outcome.

  20. You speak of hereditary poverty. Do you not see the generations of poverty created by our government charity system. Receiving undeserved charity steals the soul and productivity of millions. The human tragedy that our government war on poverty has wrought is morally reprehensible.

  21. Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It’s a great work at home opportunity. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here http://www.Pow6.com

  22. I say, after the Keystone XL poisons the Aquifer, we make John Stossel drink it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.