Why do cons cry about government inefficiency in social programs?

Question

Then they turn around and support the same government's attempts to reshape the world according to business interests?
They will go on and on about how they want government out of public schools and medical care, because they are too bloated, yet fully support a military that is happy to funnel tax dollars into huge corporations.
Seems that health care and public schooling is a smaller project than toppling and creating governments in foreign lands that are hostile to us being there. Doesn't make sense to me.

Answer 1

They do that to distract everyone from the semi-trucks they have backed up and loading at the US Treasury. If they scream loudly enough about medicare, many won't notice the $10 billion a month Bush government assistance they get to make war.

Answer 2

OMG what are you saying, Bush screwed up with a repuglican majority congress. Oh no, not one bit just ask the less then 1 in 3 that still support the evil one. America might just become socialist and take care of all the people not just the rich. They might put some money into public schools so all children have an opportunity to excel. That a disabled person might have a chance to live their lives without fear of losing everything by getting sick and going to the hospital for treatment. How can this be. How can you possible expect any decent repuglican to accept that they might do some good in the country and the world, as opposed to filling the pockets of HalburtonWhat do you expect, repuglicans to be human overnight. Not a chance. You should withdraw this question and ask something that is repuglican friendly instead of asking for the truth.

Answer 3

It goes to the heart of our belief in the proper role of government. The role of government should not be to do for individuals what they are perfectly capable of doing on their own. That's question #1.

Question #2 is an apple-orange compote. Its not so much the government in public schools as it is the NEA and ACLU and socialism, that we want out. Medical care reverts back to #1.

I disagree that we are okay with funneling "tax dollars into huge corporations." We do support a strong military, believing this is why we have long enjoyed peace in our land.

And I agree with Corey, but I'm humoring you tonight.

Answer 4

Cory has the best attitude . There are none so blind as those who won't see .Republicans seem to think Americans are smart enough to run their own lives . Liberals know they are not . Social programs that have proven not to work ; just quadruple at socialist liberal whims .Tax and spend . Tax and spend . The terrorists / insurgents are hostile to us being there because it puts them on the run . A nation's security is only as good as it's military . Once the liberals get the chance to deplete it even further than the Clinton's did - more & more terrorists will attack us . And the terrorists in this country-disquised as liberal democrat U.S. senators , will wipe democracy off the map just like they want to wipe God and freedom from Americans . If you like socialism and communism - why wait ? There are communist countries that may be more appealing ...

Answer 5

If you did your homework, you would see that Bush has outspent every President since Johnson on health care and education and unknowingly proved that throwing money around doesn't fix whats broken.

Your logic regarding the costs is faulty, opinions aside, war is a short term expense, education and health care are long term expenses. If the government increased their budget on education by 10% one year, and then only 8% the next, the cries of budget cuts would be heard around the world, even though no money was actually cut. Alas, it is the way of the beast called politics.

I

Answer 6

Because the people working for the states' contractors have been caught helping people cheat in social programs. These programs have to be monitored closely or all heck can break loose. It all takes a lot of money.

I can't make out what the rest of the comments are about.

Answer 7

Unfortunately there are some screw-ups in our social programs, and they are blown all out of proportion by our so-called "news" media. ("Breaking News: Someone cheated on welfare office!! Details at 11".) Since this just affirms what they already think, cons jump on this crap as if it was gospel!

Losing 12 billion dollars in Iraq that could have gone toward better schools and health care FOR AMERICANS shows the stupidity of our current administration. The best "protection" for the US is well-educated, healthy citizens.

When I read the answers from some of the people on this venue, I am terrified for our country and the lives of my children and grandchildren. (These blind sheep must all think that they will be rich someday, and somehow "protected" by Republicans....)

Answer 8

and beyond that... what baffles me the most...

they had a MAJORITY... and a president... for 6 years... and I don't think they even tried to do one thing to any social programs at all?

maybe like one or two extremely minor bills...

did they just give up? were they scared of a filibuster? I mean at least try, if that's what you complain about constantly...

don't whine about something and not do anything to fix it when you have the opportunity...

in fact, spending went up in many social programs? I have no idea what they are doing? saying one thing and doing another?

Answer 9

Cons go on about the government inefficiency regarding social programs because of the historical evidence of government inefficiency regarding social programs. Do you think I'll be getting my social security in 30 years?

In addition, I simply don't agree that it is the federal governments responsibility to provide endless social programs for the nation. As for government money going towards providing for the national defense, that actually comes directly from the constitution and is set forth as one of the primary roles of the federal government.

@joey - Perhaps you should worry a little more about preparing your children and/or grandchildren to handle the task of being an adult and taking care of themselves. Personally, I find it appalling that you would be worried that welfare and free health care won't be there for your children instead of teaching them not to need welfare and to provide for their own health care.

Answer 10

Why do they cry about government inefficiency? Probably because it's completely true. Please, remove your blinders of good intentions and actually look at one of the government programs. The DMV, for example: I waited for two solid hours to get my driver's license. Only eight of the twenty service counters were in use, even when the place got so full it was standing room only (and very little of that); in the meantime, there were plenty of workers milling about doing -- absolutely nothing.

How about Social Security? Any of you who are on it (I don't have that dubious honor yet), do you ever really expect to get all of the money out of it you put into it? If so, let me disillusion you. So where does all the money that doesn't get paid out go? Into the Social Security vaults, to be distributed only as the government sees fit? And then we wring our hands frantically, squealing about how the entire thing's going to tank in several years' time. Would you like to know why? Because, by its very nature, more money must go out than is coming in. Maybe when this welfare program (used intentionally as a curse) came into being in the 1930s, there weren't enough people on it to make too big of a difference in the money supply; but now that there are several MILLION pulling from it and fewer contributing to it, it's not going to last for long. By the way, whatever happened to people relying on themselves to take care of themselves when they aren't working anymore? Can't people make the choice on their own to save money for later in life? Given, some people will be stupid and not do this; I don't understand why this safety net we currently have has to drag the rest of us under with them.

Then we have public schools. I will restrict what I'm saying on this matter, since I have so much of it that I could go on for hours. A common pro-government belief nowadays is that poor-quality (read: public) schools can be saved by burying them under more money that will likely be misused, embezzled, you name it, and more regulations that no one would follow anyway even if they did make any sense. The only way to save education is to remove government's hands from it (that's the solution to a lot of things -- look at how healthy the economy was under Reagan), and increase the amount of choice individuals have in all of it.

I want to finish on the general note of independence. Contrary to nearly everyone's beliefs nowadays, individuals are indeed capable of doing things for themselves. Nearly all government programs, assuming they should exist at all, would be much better in the hands of private companies. Why? To a well-run private business, its customers are more than mere numbers on a computer screen -- its customers are what keeps it alive. A company cannot expect to survive without money, and the only way to get this money is to attract consumers by high-quality goods and services. In general, this means out-performing competitors by continually increasing the quality of said goods and services. Companies often provide necessary services; therefore, they are in business because they must be. However, there is another factor: the desire to produce and do it well. A government-run business may provide a necessary service, but has no competition for funding (they'll get whatever they want, so long as they whine convincingly enough), and thus no impetus to perform better save regulations. Have you ever noticed a government employee who seems genuinely happy to provide his services? Very rare. This lack of motivation contributes to poor quality.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, a truly great figure whose image has been hopelessly distorted over time, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..." Tell me, all who claim to live by Jefferson's philosophies, do you REALLY know what he stood for? Or are you merely justifying your obviously wrong actions with a despicable form of propaganda?