Exploding Two Conservative Myths

from JoeUser Forums


When I listened to Ron Paul being interviewed on Meet the Press and while watching the Republican debates, two of the most fundamental conservative axioms we hear from Republicans were shown to be fabrications.

First is an individual make better spending choices then government.

Second is that government spending is ineffective and wasteful.

Spending Choices

Does anyone believe that if all or most spending choices were made by individuals that they would say I need to spend money to help replace that tank the 1st Armored Division needs? I will repair the section of I95 between, mile marker X and Y in George. Baby Carol Smith needs formula today and I will buy it for her. We need another border guard to stop illegals and possibly terrorists from crossing into the U.S.

The truth is none of those and many other choices that are essential for our country to survive and prosper would be made by individuals. The spending choices must be made by BOTH individuals to provide for individual needs but the needs of our society and to insure our security and to facilitate commerce, banking, law enforcement and many other items must be made collectively by government.

That is not to say that some spending choices by government, like to build the bridge in Alaska where about 50 people lived, are the best choices. However if the choice were to repair a bridge that enabled tens of thousands to get to work each day that spending choice would be sound and could be essential.

Government spending is Wasteful

In most cases when the government spends tax dollars that money returns to the economy and helps individuals and business. If the Federal Government buys that tank the 1st Armored Division needs, Americans are put to work and the companies that make the tank earn a profit. That helps the people who own the stock of the companies who make and assemble that tank. It also provides something we NEED to protect our freedom. If the Federal government adds that Border Guard, that person spends the salary they are paid from taxes and that helps the economy. An expenditure the government makes that does not help our people is the interest on the debt that is paid to foreign investors. That tax money does not return to our economy.

If an individual takes their tax cut and invests it in a business that employs people outside the U.S. that investment takes money from our economy. In that case the spending choice by an individual harms the economy. Thus these two GOP axioms above are not true and it is time the American Voters understand the true nature of Federal spending. We do need to pay for our spending and STOP deficit spending! The GOP is supporting political ideas that are NOT in agreement with the majority of Americans. As a Republican I can not understand HOW the GOP got so far from the mainstream of the American People. Most Republicans can not complete a sentence without using the word “Conservative”. The majority of Americans are NOT Conservatives.
politics
51,847 views 186 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
So the GOP has a monopoly on government spending? I agree with you that government spending is often wasteful, but I don't think that fact exists on one side of the party lines.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: OckhamsRazorPosted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007So the GOP has a monopoly on government spending? I agree with you that government spending is often wasteful, but I don't think that fact exists on one side of the party lines.


I agree that both parties have spent money. The issue is the idea that government spending is bad and that individuals can make better spending choices. That is just not correct as I have pointed out.

As to which party has out spent the other the GOP is responsible for most of the current National Debt ($7 of the $9 Trillion) and they do not seem willing to do what it will take to end the deficit spending!
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
i do not know about anyone else but i do not want the government to be part of my daily life.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

What a lame strawman argument.

The debate isn't whether the government can spend money better. (that's a debate that can never be resolved)

The debate is which individuals can spend money better.

When you take money from one person and give it to another individual (which is what most welfare programs are at their core) you have an apples to apples comparison and it is quite definitive which individual is better with money - the one who earned it in the first place.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007i do not know about anyone else but i do not want the government to be part of my daily life.


Better find a disserted island to live and be able to do everything for your self and hope no other country wants to take possession of your island!

Reply By: DraginolPosted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007What a lame strawman argument.The debate isn't whether the government can spend money better. (that's a debate that can never be resolved)The debate is which individuals can spend money better.



No the issue is that individuals would NOT provide for our defense or most of the other essential services to enable our society to function. When the Government spends money it goes right back to individuals for salary or to purchase things ands grows the economy. It does not disappear or becomes some unneeded expenditure.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better find a disserted island to live and be able to do everything for your self and hope no other country wants to take possession of your island!
End of quote


this has nothing with the government telling me what i have to spend my money on every day.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

No the issue is that individuals would NOT provide for our defense or most of the other essential services to enable our society to function.
End of quote


Gene - if that's the issue, we're in agreement. But that's not really the issue I have with government spending. I like that spending. I'm for that spending.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Better find a disserted island to live and be able to do everything for your self and hope no other country wants to take possession of your island!
this has nothing with the government telling me what i have to spend my money on every day.



Government does not tell you what to spend YOUR money on. Where do you come up with that idea?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene - if that's the issue, we're in agreement. But that's not really the issue I have with government spending. I like that spending. I'm for that spending.


What is the issue you have with government spending?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better find a disserted island to live and be able to do everything for your self and hope no other country wants to take possession of your island!
End of quote


Yeah, the idea of the people controlling the government rather than the government controlling the people's pretty radical, isn't it, Col?

You obviously have NO understanding of the history of this nation!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, the idea of the people controlling the government rather than the government controlling the people's pretty radical, isn't it, Col?
End of quote


It is my understanding that every other nation but the United States was run that way, Gid.

What is the issue you have with government spending?
End of quote


The issue is not defense, or common property that the individual needs but cannot afford - that's the purpose of the government, to provide property that everyone can use. Regulation of monopolies is also another function I agree is allowed for the government. It's the other spending that needs to go away. ALL other spending.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

No the issue is that individuals would NOT provide for our defense or most of the other essential services to enable our society to function. When the Government spends money it goes right back to individuals for salary or to purchase things ands grows the economy. It does not disappear or becomes some unneeded expenditure.
End of quote

Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

We're not discussing defense spending or other services that all of society uses.

We are talking about your constant argument that we should be taking money from people to give to other individuals because (your words) "they need it".

Certainly I agree that the government is better set up to provide for defense or to build roads and other such community resources.  But welfare is not a community resource. It literally goes to another individual. And those individuals cannot produce as much as the people it was taken from by definition.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, December 27, 2007
Better find a disserted island to live and be able to do everything for your self and hope no other country wants to take possession of your island!
Yeah, the idea of the people controlling the government rather than the government controlling the people's pretty radical, isn't it, Col?


The people elect the Congress and it is the Congress that decides on the spending per our Constitution. The problem is and has been that when the spending is agreed upon we need to insure the taxes are equal to the spending that has been approved!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is and has been that when the spending is agreed upon we need to insure the taxes are equal to the spending that has been approved!
End of quote


We have never disagreed on this point, col, we just disagree on HOW it needs to be done. I believe by reducing spending, you believe by raising taxes.

HOWEVER, you invited Danielost to leave the country for daring to say he didn't want the government involved in his daily life. My premise was, and is, that the government was NEVER meant to control the people...people were meant to control the government. And I could show it to you Constitutionally, but you'd probably go off on a tangent about how Bush killed your favorite wombat, so it would be pointless!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ode to a Dead Wombat

My wombat is dead
George "Dubya" Bush is at fault
for all that and more.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have never disagreed on this point, col, we just disagree on HOW it needs to be done. I believe by reducing spending, you believe by raising taxes.


The Congress has decided on any spending the only issue is paying for what Congress has agreed to spend. For example - When Congress allowed Bush to Invade Iraq they had a responsibility to increase taxes to pay for that war just like we have done in the past.

HOWEVER, you invited Danielost to leave the country for daring to say he didn't want the government involved in his daily life.




What I said is that is Danielost did not want the U.S. Government to as he put it be involved in his life, then I suggested he find some place else to live where the government would not be involved.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I said is that is Danielost did not want the U.S. Government to as he put it be involved in his life, then I suggested he find some place else to live where the government would not be involved.
End of quote



i said daily life.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The government is not involved in our daily life to any real extent.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The government is not involved in our daily life to any real extent.
End of quote




then you can not compare government chooses with everyday life chooses that people make.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The government is not involved in our daily life to any real extent.
End of quote


Actually, yes, they are.

The government has dictated what is and is not appropriate parenting. If you do not parent to the government's narrowly defined view, they will remove your children from you.

The government dictates the education that our children are taught in schools. If schools do not teach to government mandated norms, they will be shut down.

Local governments regulate smoking in public in many jurisdictions, and soon wish to regulate smoking in your own home.

The government attempts to regulate the health of your children. If you do not vaccinate, and do not provide satisfactory cause to the government for not doing so, your children will be taken from you.

If your children are over or under certain weight ranges and you do not work to control it, they will be taken from you.

If your child is sick and you do not use a government endorsed medical treatment, your child will be taken from you.

The government is VERY involved in our daily life, Col, and people like you only wish them to become MORE so!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ever heard of breastmilk?

NO baby NEEDS formula. That's the LAST thing the gov't should be forcing taxpayers to cover.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
NO baby NEEDS formula. That's the LAST thing the gov't should be forcing taxpayers to cover.
End of quote


there are a few exceptions here.


my sisters husbands family including their own kids are allergic to iron. ie they cannot drink milk or breast milk. i do not know if they grow out of this or not.


but as i said this is a rare exceptions.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
but as i said this is a rare exceptions.
End of quote


My wife tells me that 3-4% of Moms are physically unable to breastfeed.

NO baby NEEDS formula. That's the LAST thing the gov't should be forcing taxpayers to cover.
End of quote


On the other side of the coin, we would rather have the woman on welfare feeding her baby formula than watered down milk, or any other substandard food. Even if the baby isn't starving to DEATH, it could cause intestinal problems down the road, which would mean more taxpayer money to health care welfare instead of food welfare.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
How did babies survive before formula was invented?

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
And Jythier, I think your wife's 3-4% of women is a high figure. There may be reasons why breastfeeding is difficult or inadvisable (breast reduction, chemotherapy, etc), but literally and naturally absolutely physically incapable? Only a minuscule number of women fit that description.

Whole milk is not a substitute for formula. Formula can hardly be considered a substitute for breast milk. But this is getting way, way off topic now.

My apologies.