How about we let republicans fund their war, and democrats fund their social programs?

Question

What do you think? Fair? Also, each side only gets to benefit from their projects...republicans get all the benefits of the Iraq war (ALL OF THEM!) and democrats get all the benefits from their social programs. Agreed?

enough money for what? The war? Or social programs?

truthsfifth, as soon as you realize that it isn't 'terrorists' that we are fighting in Iraq, you may have your answer...

Oh, I was going to ship out next week to the front lines, but my government told me that as a woman, I cannot have a combat role. My money is still good, though...

Answer 1

What about the middle of the road, non-partisan people?

Answer 2

Not no but HELL NO!

And here's why. That sounds fair at the start but what about later. Democrats want to put a time table on the war in Iraq. And I don't have a problem now. The Iraqi politician (President or Prime Minister) said we could leave any time we want to. I say let's go home. We aren't wanted there. It might not be the best idea but it was with their blessing we would be leaving.

The Democrats social programs never have a time table. LBJ started the 'war on poverty' and they never backed off on that war. Last time I looked there were still programs started in that war which were still going strong. Not factoring in inflation you are looking at about 6 TRILLION dollars spent on that 'war'. I can't even do the math to tell you how much it is with inflation factored in. Probably equal to the national debt.

Democrats want a time line on Iraq? I want a time line on the 'war on poverty'. Democrats want to say Iraq is lost. I want to say the 'war on poverty' is lost.

I've a better idea. Let's not let either one of them have their programs until they get back in the black. And not just for a year. ALL the way.

Answer 3

No, it is not fair--to those who receive benefits for social programs. Increasing benefits too much results in a cycle of dependency. When people receive too much benefits, they outweigh the incentive to work. When they do not work, they do not get valuable skills and experience that can enable them to get a better job, and therefore improve their life. Instead, they become stuck in the place where they are in life, never getting any better and becoming more and more dependent on the government. This is where the Democrats get their power--from those who are dependent on them to continue their social programs because they cannot rise out of their situation. Increasing social programs actually holds people down instead of helping them up, and therefore it is a disservice to them. Therefore, the compromise you describe would result in an ever increasing cycle of continuing increases in social programs as government dependency increases, eventually crowding out all other spending. So, your solution would lead to nothing but social spending, and this is definitely not a fair situation for anyone involved.

Answer 4

can no longer answer the question because of the fact I rather have with regard to the proper comparable perspectives, and on a similar time as I in lots of situations vote Democrat, I each each now and then vote Republican, eco-friendly party, or Libertarian. the only ingredient i might element out is that many times Eminent area is needed. as an occasion, what if somebody unearths out the city intends to construct some necessary provider, like a street, street, bridge, dam, tunnel, etc., and then some jerk gets grasping and demands tens of millions or he will ruin the finished venture. you could no longer enable somebody carry the full city hostage like that. as long as they're extremely compensated, then Eminent area would desire to stay i think of.

Answer 5

I like how you're thinking. However, both sides would soon run out of money if not for the "Forgotten Man". From the article linked below, the Forgotten Man "has behaved himself, fulfilled his contracts, and asked for nothing."

Both sides that you seem to be condemning (and I do join you in that) have one thing in common. They produce nothing. In order to fund their massive efforts, they must loot the people in society who produce. The model of these people, the Forgotten Man minds his own business, goes to work and pays his taxes. People who have grand plans whether for war or great social goals would be powerless if they were unable to expropriate the efforts of this Forgotten Man.

So I say (as do you) let those who want war or who aim for social goals fund them themselves. I just don't think they could do it.

I hope that you'll read this short article by William Graham Sumner:

http://www.mises.org/story/2485

Answer 6

Hi, Heidi -

LOL I'd go for that. But here's something to think about....

I live in a community that relies heavily on volunteer fire departments. These volunteer depts, in turn, rely heavily on the communities they serve for funding. Most of the area is moderate/conservative - their fire departments are fully funded. I happen to live in a liberal stronghold....guess who's fire department is woefully underfunded? And it's not because these people don't have money, either.....

I'm not saying that *all* liberals are stingy - but a lot of 'em are. I think the social programs would end up busted.

Answer 7

You are not grasping what a free society is all about. If you wish to live in a fascist state and do as you mention, then who will be the slaves and the cannon fodder to feed your wars? Oh, maybe you were planning on doing it yourself? I doubt that!

Answer 8

I know this sounds stupid-but here it goes anyway-how about we all start working together as Americans,before this great country of ours is destroyed from within?

Answer 9

I dont want democrats controlling social programs. i beleive in helping people become independent not in forcing them into permanent dependency

Answer 10

Works for me.

Except that you also benefit from killing terrorists. I don't benefit from supporting people I've never met.