Free-Market Capitalism never loses?

[Lagboltz]

Andy,
These exchanges are ballooning into a number of issues that continuously unroll new perspectives, but don't seem to have any "exit strategy". They are quite valuable as the sort of principles I was looking for in understanding conservative thinking. You seem quite eclectic and intelligent, and I will assume that you represent conservative thinking. I owe responses to your points, but I will present them briefly as viewpoints and try not present challenges that you need to reply. Afterwards (after words, (pun)), I would like to proceed in a different vein.

War:
I never meant for you to read into my post that I was blaming the current war as a real significant part of the budget deficit. I agree that the current wars are not the type of strain on the current federal budget that many people claim. The full costs, present and future, have been estimated at around a trillion or two and that will be spread with lingering costs several years after the war is over. My point was in the end, these expenditures have two ramifications, in that both war materiel and foreign targets evaporate so that these costs have a higher monetary impact on our economy than, for example, the monetary impact of building lasting utilities in the US. I am not making a moral or political stance here, but just giving an economic observation.

Taxes:
We probably will never see eye-to-eye on progressive taxes.

Income Equality:
I think we will have to disagree. I think of inequality of the population in terms of cause and effect. You seem to be taking inequality as a premise.

CEO salaries:
Private stock holders have very little individual power, and no collective power to control executive salaries or corporate folly. Generally it is only the BOD can replace a CEO. Institutional stockholders such as mutual funds are generally the largest holders of stocks. As they should be, they aren't very interested in salaries or other wastes until it becomes visible in quarterly reports (or illegal insider knowledge).

Inflation:
I was arguing that "inflation may be one outcome" of taming the federal budget, not that it is an outcome that is designed or necessary.

Lobbyists:
I think we understand each other's views. I agree with what you brought up about campaign financing. I would go further to say that the campaigns are too long and operate like a circus, but I am not going to argue what, if anything should be done about that.

The religious perspective:
I will cede to your points concerning the true meaning of the bible. My upbringing was as an unenthusiastic Baptist, and I should never have started that vein in the first place. But you should understand that rightly or wrongly, the concept of the monetary poor being in an elevated position over the rich is common thinking among many. I will cite no references, it's is largely anecdotal in my upbringing.

Liberal/Conservative - black and white.
I would like to remind you that focussing on the extremes of socialism has no impact on me, and I won't argue the points. I would bet that most Democrats would agree with you that conditions in Cuba or China are abhorrent compared to our way of life.

Afterwards:
This is where I would like to change the focus of this thread, if you will. I will do it in the next post. Let's not focus on socialism.

 

[Lagboltz]

Conservatives often mention eliminating unconstitutional spending as one premise for the government. I will put words in your mouth and you can correct me if I am wrong.

Let's have the conservative government. We eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The pie chart ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget ) shows "Other Discretionary". Let's get rid of that. We are left with interest at 9%, "Other Mandatory" at 11%, and Defense at 20%.

We can't get rid of interest payments. I don't know what "Other Mandatory" encompasses so I will take that at face value and assume that it is mandatory. The constitution mentions that the federal government bears responsibility for a militia. So that brings us to 9+11+20, which is 40% of the current budget. David Walker's projections of a $50 Trillion deficit (his measure of future economic health) now drops considerably to an arguably manageable state.

Of course there would be total chaos if all this were done quickly, but suppose over a decade or so, this role of the federal government settles into equilibrium.

To remain competitive with foreign manufacturing and service industries, US corporations are eliminating company-sponsored pensions and medical benefits. I would assume they will do this in the future, so there is no place for these in industry or government.

The questions: What do you see life in the US to be like?

There are problems with the aging of the population. The elderly are taking a disproportionate amount of medical care, but are less able to pay for it. How do we handle it? What are our moral or financial obligations to this sector?

We have eliminated welfare checks and food stamps. How do we handle the large segment of population that have an ingrained amoral culture of irresponsibility that is being passed down? (See Ghetto Nation, Cora Daniels) Do we try to do anything with this increasing demographic?

What do we do with the destitute who are unable to work and have no relatives that will put up with them? single parent households with an unmanageable number of children? ne'er-do-wells hopelessly addicted to alcohol or drugs? and those not quite insane enough to be to be institutionalized? -- is there any moral obligation to this sector?

For the more spirited but unskilled worker, with no minimum wage, what do we do about, shelter, medical emergencies, their future retirement? We can give everyone opportunities, but some form of survival of the fittest will allow only a percentage to rise to the American Dream. What percentage do you project? What percentage of subsistence living do you project?

Can we reliably depend on private charitable foundations of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet or Religious based charitable programs to the extent that it will make a difference? What are the other options?

What is the governments role in regulation? Do we go as far as to eliminate the Sherman Antitrust Act? There are many ways that corporate activity can become undesirable. How should the government proceed if at all?

 

[Andy]

Let's have the conservative government. We eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The pie chart ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget ) shows "Other Discretionary". Let's get rid of that. We are left with interest at 9%, "Other Mandatory" at 11%, and Defense at 20%.

We can't get rid of interest payments. I don't know what "Other Mandatory" encompasses so I will take that at face value and assume that it is mandatory. The constitution mentions that the federal government bears responsibility for a militia. So that brings us to 9+11+20, which is 40% of the current budget. David Walker's projections of a $50 Trillion deficit (his measure of future economic health) now drops considerably to an arguably manageable state.

'Other Mandatory' includes Welfare, Food Stamps, VA Benefits, Unemployment compensation, a host of other hand outs, and for government operational expenses. Generally the term "Mandatory" is a code word for entitlements. Social Security is "mandatory". The idea of "Mandatory" refers to it being mandated by the current law.

Less than 1% is operational expenses. So, 30% of the budget is left.

Of course there would be total chaos if all this were done quickly, but suppose over a decade or so, this role of the federal government settles into equilibrium.

To remain competitive with foreign manufacturing and service industries, US corporations are eliminating company-sponsored pensions and medical benefits. I would assume they will do this in the future, so there is no place for these in industry or government.

The questions: What do you see life in the US to be like?

There are problems with the aging of the population. The elderly are taking a disproportionate amount of medical care, but are less able to pay for it. How do we handle it? What are our moral or financial obligations to this sector?

We have eliminated welfare checks and food stamps. How do we handle the large segment of population that have an ingrained amoral culture of irresponsibility that is being passed down? (See Ghetto Nation, Cora Daniels) Do we try to do anything with this increasing demographic?

What do we do with the destitute who are unable to work and have no relatives that will put up with them? single parent households with an unmanageable number of children? ne'er-do-wells hopelessly addicted to alcohol or drugs? and those not quite insane enough to be to be institutionalized? -- is there any moral obligation to this sector?

For the more spirited but unskilled worker, with no minimum wage, what do we do about, shelter, medical emergencies, their future retirement? We can give everyone opportunities, but some form of survival of the fittest will allow only a percentage to rise to the American Dream. What percentage do you project? What percentage of subsistence living do you project?

Can we reliably depend on private charitable foundations of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet or Religious based charitable programs to the extent that it will make a difference? What are the other options?

What is the governments role in regulation? Do we go as far as to eliminate the Sherman Antitrust Act? There are many ways that corporate activity can become undesirable. How should the government proceed if at all?

MORALS
In America, we have the right to purse happiness. Not a right to happiness. There is no moral view, since no one is OWED anything. You are not owed something because you chose to be immoral yourself, or because you jumped in bed with 5 people and cranked out 10 kids while working at a fast food joint, or because you happen to have existed for a high number of revolutions around the sun, or because you didn't make wise use of your early years in acquiring work skills.

Even from a Christian perspective, the Bible states clearly and directly, a man who does not work... should not eat. In other words, you should starve to death.

Now should we help the poor? Should a person give to charity? Sure. Churches have long been a benefit to the poor. My parents church has a special fund specifically to help widows and the poor. Most Biblical churches do. But none do it because these people, old, immoral, or unskilled, somehow morally deserve the help. They don't. No one is OWED anything.

ELDERLY & AMORAL
Personal responsibility. You choose to live like a barn animal, you choose to not set aside money for retirement, and therefore you choose to be poor, or to go back to work when you get old.

Further, by changing the economic incentives, much of this issue will disappear on it's own. People live in destitute situations because it is economically profitable to do so. By removing the economic incentives to be poor, people will naturally move towards working.

I worked at a place with a man in his mid 60s, who turned in his two-weeks notice because if he earned anymore that year, his social security benefit would be halved. The economic incentive was to be a burden on society instead of working, so he did just that.

We have women who specifically choose to get pregnant with another child out of wedlock, specifically to increase their welfare checks. The economic incentive was to be immoral, and thus they were.

UNSKILLED & MINIMUM WAGE
The minimum wage is a determent to unskilled labor, not a help. What people do not realize is that the real minimum wage is always ZERO. When you force labor costs up, that doesn't change the value of the work done.

Example, a factory job making brooms, that can pay $4/hour. Just because you make a government law saying he must be paid $7.25, doesn't mean that the public will pay a higher resulting cost for the brooms, when they can get a broom from Mexico at a lower cost due to lower wages.

Thus, the factory will shut down and the employee will make the real minimum wage of ... ZERO.

This is the universal effect of minimum wage. Unskilled labor will always lose jobs, not gain income. Further, minimum wage makes unskilled labor are larger problem because those that would otherwise gain skills by being employed at a lower wage, will not be employed at all, and thus not gain skills that lead to better jobs.

Minimum wage effectively cuts off the bottom rung of the economic ladder. By removing the minimum wage, thousands of jobs will be created that unskilled labor can fill, and at the same time, gain skills that will allow them advance.

I'll cite one personal example. After the minimum wage increase to $6.65/hour, a dealership that I worked at, reduced it's number of auto mechanic apprenticeship positions from 4 to 1. The dealership couldn't afford to pay that much to that many unskilled workers.

Three unskilled workers that could have gotten a job and skills under the lower minimum wage, now would not get either. Removing the minimum wage is a solution to unskilled labor, not a problem for it.

CONCLUSION
The over all answer to most of these is, we don't. First, it's morally wrong for the government to steal funds from one group of people, no matter who that group is, and give it to another, not matter who that group is.

So for most, personal responsibility is the key. People should be the primary care takers of themselves. YOU... have the moral obligation to take care of... YOU. Not, 'we' have the moral obligation to take care of 'them'.

Like I said in another post, people do not just roll over and die. They get up and do what is required to live.

Further, most of our attempts to fix these problems, have simply made the problems much worse, because we provided economic incentives to be in that problem.

BTW, on the corporate thing, can you give an example of an undesirable action?

 

[Lagboltz]

Andy,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I think I now understand the mind of one conservative.

Are there any other conservatives that want to answer my post? I would like to hear from you too.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm not sure what you are thinking that I'm thinking, but I am not specifically blaming capitalism on the problems, I was just arguing that when I said "Our economy is now in free fall", you replied

It has been too long since I have been here and i have lost track of the train of thought.

I doubt I was blaming you for thinking that all the problems are due to capitalism. Merely taking an opportunity to bash federalism.

My argument was that the several fiscal factors in the US economy that I mentioned above are the reasons behind the free fall.

I doubt that was me who said that. I think there are a few factors that indicate the economy has problems. Not as many as some would have you believe but a few.

Now let me get to the bottom line. IMHO, Both Democrats and Republicans in the house, senate and executive branch over the past few decades were equally unconscionable and short sighted imbeciles in the fiscal management of our country. We citizens can control the destiny of our government by voting. Right? Voting for who??!! They are all too self-serving and listen too much to the whispers of lobbyists.

I would agree that both parties are to blame. If the fed did not engage in fiscal managment o the economy (a government power not granted by our founders in the constitution) then they would not have messed it up. Furthermore I would claim that it would not be messed up at all were it not for government interventionism. Sure there would the the occasional drought and whatnot but new advances in technology make droughts much less impactful on the economy.

So if voting won't make a difference does that mean that it cannot be relied on as a check and balance as designed by our constitution? Then I guess it becomes even more important that our other checks and balances have been removed!!! The gov is not limited to an enumerated list of powers anymore. The government is not limited to tax in accordance with the census. There is no more tension between state rights and federal rights. etc. The left warns us about an ever increasing set of military powers and loss of civil rights, and the right warns us about an ever increasing government management of the entire economy and all the details. Wisely we should combine these two warnings and be afraid.

There are a few reasons I'm not a Republican.
The prevailing feeling of Democrats is that they are the party for the poorer majority of wage earners, and the GOP represents largely the few wealthy.

That is the prevailing view but I think that a great deal of it is image.

I don't like the conservative Christian ties to the Republicans. That is the second reason I am a Democrat.

As a conservative Christian I don't like the strong ties either. I think Christians should be more impactful on both parties and outside of politics as well.

They are too focused on theological abstractions such as gay marriage, teaching creationism in high schools and whether life starts at one cell or whatever. I don't want them putting Christian abstractions in high school science. Meanwhile the souls of the lowest income people are breaking-down. They are filling the jails at a rate higher than any other country. At the government level, they are deserted by the GOP more than by the Democrats.

I would suggest that the answer is for government to be less involved in all of these areas and let local schools and areas decide. I would suggest that the dems are more involved but they don't make the situation any better more often worse. I would suggest that the best approach is for the government to step in and stop people from harming and taking advantage of the poor, to create a landscape where the poor can succeed and where they can be helped by the compassionate if they cannot.

One can argue that real Christians should be more attracted to Democrats:
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ... But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation."

The bible teaches personal responsibility. Christians need to be helping those in need whether or not the government is involved. But as a christian who thinks federalism is a part of the problem I cannot support the party which is the most federalistic - dems.

Politically, a lot of the people here are more concerned with the abstractions of capitalism rather than what is happening to the people of this country. The disparity between the bottom 50% and the upper 1% of income earners is continually widening due to government mismanagement. Capitalism, in principle should be good for all classes but that may be breaking down by govmt mismanagement. The government has put us on a very unstable path that is now leading to fiscal failure on a large scale in the not-to-distant future.

I would love to blame the disparity between rich and poor on government mismanagement but I can't. The disparity existed, often larger, sometimes smaller, before our current government became so large.

It would be nice to blame the disparity on nasty rich folks taking advantage of innocent poor folks but the evidence doesn't support that either. And if it did the answer would not be to steal from the rich but to outlaw nastiness.

It would be simplistic to blame the disparity on laziness but the evidence seems to indicate that while this is a factor major life traumas are a larger factor. When these traumas are the result of someone else's nastiness then by all means let the law intervene. When they are the result of chance and circumstance then it is not the governments place to do anything (not according to the right theory of government or the constitution that was given to us anyway). When government does what it should to stop nastiness and when people work hard rather than being lazy the amount of trauma that is left would be small enough to be handled by compassionate friends, family, or community.

 

[Dr.Who]

I wouldn't put it quite that way. I would say capitalism is good, and class inequality is an inevitable consequence.

Well I have heard those on the right make that claim. They say that if ten people walked into a room with a hundred dollars nine would walk out with ten and one with $910. The implication is that the one was smarter and harder working, that the "earning" was merited.

Those on the left say similar things but blame the one for taking advantage of the others.

But I would challenge if merit or greed are the only factors contributing to making one man rich and another not. Merit should not be regulated and rather than being punished it should be rewarded. Greed (when harmful) should be regulated but not just wealth.

But what if neither merit nor greed are the major causes of wealth disparity?

What might other causes be? What should be done about them? What if wealth disparity has nothing at all to do with capitalism? After all communisms have wealth disparity too.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm talking about the Jack Abramoff type of lobbyist. I have a deep mistrust of the financial power of some of these lobbyists and how they can influence representatives. They and our government largely operate outside the public view.

If the representative had to follow the constitution as written and did not have the power to redirect the tax dollars of his constituents toward one particular citizen or group then this would be of almost no concern.

Of course congress has the power to institute accounting oversight at anytime. Do you wonder why they do not?

 

[Dr.Who]

OK. Luke said "Blessed are the poor, for they..." Matthew said "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they...." What was Matthew's intent? Matthew goes on later to disclose something about a rich ruler being advised to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor in order to be perfect. That seems to be advise for self-inflicted socialism. It is hardly a philosophy to increase his GDP.

The moral belief that one should share what he has is just that; a moral belief. Do you believe in imposing your morality on others?

Jesus talked about the concept of sharing here and you rightly noticed that the sharing was voluntary. (You have observed more about the bible than many. You even rightly quoted Luke and Mattew as being different accounts of what is probably the same event. Seems appropot in a discussion of what one's views of dems and republicans are; namely that we do all have different perspectives.) If the sharing were not voluntary then it would be immoral and generally when one person takes from another by force we rightly call it what it is - stealing.

Many could learn a lesson from Jesus on the merits of extreme sharing. The disciples shared abundantly and when they did not they mentioned that the reason they were not sharing was that they had no more left. If even a small percent of people shared extremely then there would be no debate about government thrusting sharing upon anyone (not that a lack of sharing justifies it).

The bible encourages us to be wise with our money and to save but also not to worry about how much we have.

The bible encourages us to work hard specifically so that we will have enough to help others (Paul).

But it does not cross the line into immorality by demanding that sharing stop being voluntary. When one group of Christians set up a communal type community they sold their possessions as needed and shared freely. One couple held back and did not share all of what they had. When they were admonished by the leaders they were not admonished for not sharing but for claiming that they had shared it all and lying about what they had withheld. They were told that the money was theirs to do with what they wanted to but the lie to [God] was the sin.

On side note: Ghandi advocated appealing the morality of ones enemies. When one suffered as a result of his enemies unjust actions against him the suffering was to motivate his enemy to change their ways (and it worked!). The suffering of the unjustly prisoned or beaten should cause the prison guard to rethink. The suffering of the widow who cannot pay the high burden of her property taxes should cause us and our politicians to think. And the suffering of the poor should cause all of us to think. So how do we alleviate the suffering of the poor without increasing the suffering of those who would be taxed to support them or increasing the suffering of those who would be punished for disobeying the tax laws? One solution is for those of us who are not suffering from poverty to step up and help directly while broadcasting the plight for all to see. It is not perfect but it is right and it is a start. What is less perfect is to force sharing and create more suffering in the meantime.

 

[Dr.Who]

Even from a Christian perspective, the Bible states clearly and directly, a man who does not work... should not eat. In other words, you should starve to death.

I am sure that you are aware of what I am about to say and it is merely a technicality for those who may not be aware.

The passage you quote from is about idleness. The man who does not work [because he is idle] is not to eat. The widows, orphans, or disabled are clearly to be taken care of both by individuals and institutions. Sometimes even by the theocracy that was existent at the time of Moses. Of course the US is not a theocracy and our constitution as written did not allow for charity.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are problems with the aging of the population. The elderly are taking a disproportionate amount of medical care, but are less able to pay for it. How do we handle it? What are our moral or financial obligations to this sector?

We have eliminated welfare checks and food stamps. How do we handle the large segment of population that have an ingrained amoral culture of irresponsibility that is being passed down? (See Ghetto Nation, Cora Daniels) Do we try to do anything with this increasing demographic?

What do we do with the destitute who are unable to work and have no relatives that will put up with them? single parent households with an unmanageable number of children? ne'er-do-wells hopelessly addicted to alcohol or drugs? and those not quite insane enough to be to be institutionalized? -- is there any moral obligation to this sector?

For the more spirited but unskilled worker, with no minimum wage, what do we do about, shelter, medical emergencies, their future retirement? We can give everyone opportunities, but some form of survival of the fittest will allow only a percentage to rise to the American Dream. What percentage do you project? What percentage of subsistence living do you project?

Can we reliably depend on private charitable foundations of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet or Religious based charitable programs to the extent that it will make a difference? What are the other options?

What is the governments role in regulation? Do we go as far as to eliminate the Sherman Antitrust Act? There are many ways that corporate activity can become undesirable. How should the government proceed if at all?

These are all problems that should be addressed. obviously there is not enough time now or in this thread.

My only comment now will be that it is not right to create another wrong situation in order to address one that already exist. It is not right to steal from one segment of society for the benefit of another. This will destroy our democracy in time.

 

[Lagboltz]

It has been too long since I have been here and i have lost track of the train of thought.

Now I'm the one being overwhelmed with posts. I can see that you have put a lot of time into it, but, I will have to answer briefly because of time.

I would agree that both parties are to blame. If the fed did not engage in fiscal managment o the economy (a government power not granted by our founders in the constitution) then they would not have messed it up. Furthermore I would claim that it would not be messed up at all were it not for government interventionism. Sure there would the the occasional drought and whatnot but new advances in technology make droughts much less impactful on the economy. .......

I think we agree, on how we got there. My concerns to the mess is different than yours. I want to know how we can get out. The government seems to be firmly entrenched in the current mode and the people, through voting, are left with voting for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils. We are simply voting for who will be members of the good-old-boys club.

I would suggest that the answer {for abstract theological conservatism} is for government to be less involved in all of these areas and let local schools and areas decide.

Private schools can do what they want. For public schools, theology should be kept out of science classes. I am a scientist and I can't be moved from this opinion.

I would love to blame the disparity between rich and poor on government mismanagement but I can't. The disparity existed, often larger, sometimes smaller, before our current government became so large.

It would be nice to blame the disparity on nasty rich folks taking advantage of innocent poor folks but the evidence doesn't support that either. And if it did the answer would not be to steal from the rich but to outlaw nastiness.

You are replying to my statement "Capitalism, in principle should be good for all classes but that may be breaking down by govmt mismanagement. etc." I didn't mean to blame capitalism, I meant to say that capitalism, by itself, is not enough to cure excessive poverty in the lowest of classes.

Let me further agree, the "socialism" aspects of government are pampering some, (but not all) of the lower classes in a destructive way. Finally some Liberals may complain about "nasty rich folks", but I am not one of them.

It would be simplistic to blame the disparity on laziness but the evidence seems to indicate that while this is a factor major life traumas are a larger factor. When these traumas are the result of someone else's nastiness then by all means let the law intervene. When they are the result of chance and circumstance then it is not the governments place to do anything (not according to the right theory of government or the constitution that was given to us anyway). When government does what it should to stop nastiness and when people work hard rather than being lazy the amount of trauma that is left would be small enough to be handled by compassionate friends, family, or community.

Major life traumas are one factor. I mentioned several other problems in post, #17, such as old age, single parent households, drug addicts, the nearly insane. To me, removing government programs from these people is acceptable, if there is another solution. I really doubt that compassionate outsiders will be enough to alleviate the problem. The inner cities are just too full of these people who simply cannot work and can't survive without aid.

 

[Lagboltz]

.... But what if neither merit nor greed are the major causes of wealth disparity?

What might other causes be? What should be done about them? What if wealth disparity has nothing at all to do with capitalism? After all communisms have wealth disparity too.

That sounds like questions I am asking. I do not have the answers. In post #17 I am turning questions like that around and asking how will a small government more strictly following the constitution solve these problems.

 

[Lagboltz]

The moral belief that one should share what he has is just that; a moral belief. Do you believe in imposing your morality on others?

Not at all and I don't want others to impose their moral belief on me.

Jesus talked about the concept of sharing .....

You make a number of observations about Christianity, morality, and imposition of one's morality on others. Yes, Christian morality should not be the job of the government to enforce.

On side note: ...... So how do we alleviate the suffering of the poor without increasing the suffering of those who would be taxed to support them or increasing the suffering of those who would be punished for disobeying the tax laws?

Again that is my major question.

One solution is for those of us who are not suffering from poverty to step up and help directly while broadcasting the plight for all to see. It is not perfect but it is right and it is a start. What is less perfect is to force sharing and create more suffering in the meantime.

I have been and am still for progressive taxes. You seem to be saying, that is essentially legislating sharing, and forcing morality. Your solution won't happen until there is a massive social realignment outside the government toward the direction of a utopia of generosity. I'm all for it, if it is possible for people to go that way. Christianity is generous in spirit, but not in practice to the extent that would be needed to allow a flat tax and lower government spending.

What I would feel more comfortable with, is to see the country move toward a substitute way of handling social problems first, then figure out the governments new role in taxation and legislation.

 

[Lagboltz]

My only comment now will be that it is not right to create another wrong situation in order to address one that already exist. It is not right to steal from one segment of society for the benefit of another. This will destroy our democracy in time.

It looks like you see the difficulty that I see. Conservatives here have been pushing for a smaller government with no social spending and flat taxes. How do they propose to solve the social problems that would ensue? I wondered about our moral obligation. Let me back away from that and hypothetically allow whatever conservatives want to happen. Yes some people without welfare and food stamps will hunker down and get jobs. But, how do we prevent a potentially huge social unrest from the different categories of people who are unwilling or unable to work? There will be more crime. It may escalate to rioting and looting as it happened in the Detroit race riot in 1965. In four days, 43 dead, 467 injured, over 7,200 arrests and more than 2,000 buildings burned down. It was quelled by 8000 Nat. Guardsmen, 4,700, 82nd Airborne Div, and 360 State police.

If staunch conservatives get their way, new riots would arise from those who want back their food stamps, welfare checks, social security checks and Medicare. It won't be pretty. Conservatives must think about these problems, but I haven't seen anyone here consider this downside of radically changing the current state of government.

 

[BigRob]

It looks like you see the difficulty that I see. Conservatives here have been pushing for a smaller government with no social spending and flat taxes. How do they propose to solve the social problems that would ensue? I wondered about our moral obligation. Let me back away from that and hypothetically allow whatever conservatives want to happen. Yes some people without welfare and food stamps will hunker down and get jobs. But, how do we prevent a potentially huge social unrest from the different categories of people who are unwilling or unable to work? There will be more crime. It may escalate to rioting and looting as it happened in the Detroit race riot in 1965. In four days, 43 dead, 467 injured, over 7,200 arrests and more than 2,000 buildings burned down. It was quelled by 8000 Nat. Guardsmen, 4,700, 82nd Airborne Div, and 360 State police.

If staunch conservatives get their way, new riots would arise from those who want back their food stamps, welfare checks, social security checks and Medicare. It won't be pretty. Conservatives must think about these problems, but I haven't seen anyone here consider this downside of radically changing the current state of government.

You are arguing that being fiscally responsible is impossible because it will start riots?

I think most conservatives will settle for a balanced budget and lower taxes. There can still be social spending under that system, just not massive wasteful spending that seems to be the trademark of government.