Help
RedSpawn, on 2017-May-24, 08:33, said:
Let me qualify that I am oversimplifying here, but it's to illustrate a key point.
The Democratic ideals in their purest forms push toward a welfare state.
The Republican ideals in their purest forms push toward a warfare state.
I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that one state is morally superior to the next.
If we become a welfare-state===> Problem -- too many lazy or displaced, comfort-driven, employable citizens will drop out of the labor force and receive entitlements (they don't need) and will compromise the financial solvency of this nation and thus compromise our sovereignty. This state also tends to create too much business regulation and bureaucracy which hampers the growth of the economy and stifles competition in the marketplace.
If we become a warfare-state===> Problem -- we create a "war" economy where we seemingly need to instigate and incite very costly wars without just cause (as in the case of "no weapons of mass destruction"). Eventually, the nation becomes dependent on this war economy and government military expenditures to "balance out" the crazy booms (highs & bubbles) and busts (lows & recessions) of our national economy. This war economy also compromises the financial solvency of our nation by increasing the public debt because war is never free. The penalty of war is death, disease, and debt.
Also, with a persisting war economy we financially feed the "military industrial complex" (MIC) which shows no signs of reducing its empire size. It will continue to need larger and larger budget appropriations to function. The MIC will seemingly become larger, more combative, and more ominous and yes, more intrusive into our own personal lives under the Patriot Act. The goal of the Patriot Act is to root out terrorism by providing us "more comfort (security & surveillance)" in exchange for "our relinquishing some of Constitutional rights & liberties" such as protection from illegal searches and seizures of our intellectual property such as e-mails, text communications, etc under the 4th Amendment.
A warfare economy creates a "surveillance state" which directly conflicts with the values and spirit of our Constitutional republic birth.
A welfare economy creates a nation of dependents which directly conflicts with the values of liberty, free will, and freedom.
That's why we need both Democrats and Republicans to come to the table in the House and Senate and debate it out because when we discuss our concerns as civil men and follow rules of procedure, we will reach a compromise and hopefully create NEITHER of the states I have mentioned above.
I would like feedback on this one. Thanks.
The Democratic ideals in their purest forms push toward a welfare state.
The Republican ideals in their purest forms push toward a warfare state.
I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that one state is morally superior to the next.
If we become a welfare-state===> Problem -- too many lazy or displaced, comfort-driven, employable citizens will drop out of the labor force and receive entitlements (they don't need) and will compromise the financial solvency of this nation and thus compromise our sovereignty. This state also tends to create too much business regulation and bureaucracy which hampers the growth of the economy and stifles competition in the marketplace.
If we become a warfare-state===> Problem -- we create a "war" economy where we seemingly need to instigate and incite very costly wars without just cause (as in the case of "no weapons of mass destruction"). Eventually, the nation becomes dependent on this war economy and government military expenditures to "balance out" the crazy booms (highs & bubbles) and busts (lows & recessions) of our national economy. This war economy also compromises the financial solvency of our nation by increasing the public debt because war is never free. The penalty of war is death, disease, and debt.
Also, with a persisting war economy we financially feed the "military industrial complex" (MIC) which shows no signs of reducing its empire size. It will continue to need larger and larger budget appropriations to function. The MIC will seemingly become larger, more combative, and more ominous and yes, more intrusive into our own personal lives under the Patriot Act. The goal of the Patriot Act is to root out terrorism by providing us "more comfort (security & surveillance)" in exchange for "our relinquishing some of Constitutional rights & liberties" such as protection from illegal searches and seizures of our intellectual property such as e-mails, text communications, etc under the 4th Amendment.
A warfare economy creates a "surveillance state" which directly conflicts with the values and spirit of our Constitutional republic birth.
A welfare economy creates a nation of dependents which directly conflicts with the values of liberty, free will, and freedom.
That's why we need both Democrats and Republicans to come to the table in the House and Senate and debate it out because when we discuss our concerns as civil men and follow rules of procedure, we will reach a compromise and hopefully create NEITHER of the states I have mentioned above.
I would like feedback on this one. Thanks.
Very few, if any, republicans see their philosophy in its purest form as a "warfare state," and democrats have helped the ballooning of the military industrial complex too. Remember that Eisenhower, who warned against it, was a republican. And the democrats that I know think more in terms of a "safety net" than what you call a "welfare state." Between your two extremes, I have no hesitation in calling the notion of a welfare state morally superior to that of a warfare state.
I've been in business all my life, and I know that the marketplace is efficient in producing the goods and services needed by the population. It doesn't do any good to promise everyone an abundant life if there are insufficient goods and services available to meet that goal. But the marketplace is not geared toward ensuring the equitable distribution of the goods and services produced, as we can clearly see these days. So, as a society, we need to provide for both a dynamic marketplace and a reasonable safety net.
We also have to face up to the fact that--with advancing technology--the business community will not be creating enough good jobs to support a middle-class life style for all the competent, hardworking folks who want and need those jobs. Something will have to give. Walls won't fix it.
I do agree that the military industrial complex needs to be brought to heel (and not just by fixing the accounting). We need a strong defense, though, especially given our bumbling history of enraging folks around the world, but we should stop engaging in unilateral military actions. If North Korea (or Iran) attacks us or an ally with a nuclear weapon, they should know that the response will be powerful. But our launching a preemptive attack--as the US did in Iraq--will only lead to worse problems down the road. (However, exaggerating the problem with a fake $6.5 trillion scandal doesn't help.)
I've paid a lot of taxes over the years, and I've never had a problem with that. I think that the notion that we need more tax cuts is just plain stupid--stupid and irresponsible. I know that free-lunch crowd salivates at every mention of a tax cut, but there is no free lunch.
