Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:21 pm
lol...cato...
At least explain yourself.Freakaloin wrote:lol...cato...
Because people are ignorant sheep.Freakaloin wrote:fender...u can find twice as much stuff arguing the opposite...thats right nitwit...ur opinion is in the minority...for a reason...
Cato has actually talked with the administration quite a bit about their social security privatization plan.Fender wrote::lol:
I'm not even republican, let alone neo-con. And cato and mises are independent and have no political affiliation what-so-ever. Those two organizations are two of the current administration's biggest critics.
brown toothed island monkey :lol:Doombrain wrote:fucking fat yank :lol:R00k wrote:English. :lol:Doombrain wrote: Great British
For the most part, yes. They often do more harm than good. They rarely benefit who they were designed to benefit and the administrative and other social costs often outweigh those benefits.Freakaloin wrote:so u think social programs r bad things as well?
We definitely differ here, although I did feel the same way at one time.Fender wrote:FDR was a socialist and his New Deal programs are probably the worst thing (economically) any president has done to this country. We can trace the downward spiral of personal responsibility and accountability back to his programs when the gov't started handing out money.
I would be all for state-based programs. That seems like what they should have been to begin with, so I guess we do agree a bit on the subject. It's a shame that it will never be that way now -- once tax dollars work their way up to the federal level, getting them returned to the hands of state governments is next to impossible.Fender wrote: For the most part, yes. They often do more harm than good. They rarely benefit who they were designed to benefit and the administrative and other social costs often outweigh those benefits.
At the very least they should be state based programs instead of federal.
As long as we're not talking about Peak Oil. :icon32:Fender wrote:At least we can have an intelligent conversation, R00k, even if we disagree. Thank you.
Fender wrote:For the most part, yes. They often do more harm than good. They rarely benefit who they were designed to benefit and the administrative and other social costs often outweigh those benefits.Freakaloin wrote:so u think social programs r bad things as well?
At the very least they should be state based programs instead of federal.
I can't deny that -- that he was partially responsible for the shift in perception about the federal government's responsibilities. And that really is a shame. If he had made it a state program, that could have possibly made a huge difference. Although I'm sure it was bound to happen eventually anyway.Fender wrote:Yeah, the President and Congress were never meant to be the seats of power in this country. The true power should in the state's Governors and Legislative bodies. FDR is responsible for most of the transfer of power from the state to federal level, or at least the beginning of the downward spiral.