Despite how unsustainable and morally hazardous the welfare state is, it does not begin to reach the moral bankruptcy of unwavering support of the state military. For conservatives, it is good and just to complain about every government program under the sun except the military. The military is the one shining beacon of government efficiency. To criticise the military is to criticise, not only the institution, but the nation itself. Conservatives don't tend to discriminate between which wars are just and which wars are unjust. If the good ol' US of A is involved, all wars are just. What? You'd rather be nuked?
What strikes me as odd is that a political ideology that claims to oppose stealing from people to assist others with welfare supports stealing from people to assist others abroad. Is it because guns are involved, perhaps? As I have pointed out before: an unrestrained military is the greatest excuse for a government to get bigger and violate rights at home. When you support the drone strikes (7% efficiency), the occupations of foreign lands (for nothing humanitarian) and the ousting of dictators (to then install NATO's preferred dictator), you're supporting the growth of the state whether you like it or not.
Don't get me wrong - the welfare state is stupid, but it doesn't result in the loss of hundreds of innocent lives across the world, each and every day. That's right. Despite all the right's posturing towards small government and the free-market, the more moral choice would be to vote for an anti-war lefty. Conservatives: weight it up, and perhaps channel your need to over-protect yourself into your own community, instead of supporting the destruction of the world.
Honestly, I think you should be more concerned about the ousting of dictators, only to be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood; and the coddling of terrorists that leads us into wars, and the inciting of racial and gender tension that may very well lead to civil war if people don't get a grip. A Lefty (Obama) does those things. So........whether it's war or inciting war, you can't blame it all on "the Right". The Right's getting tired of being the scapegoat for every ill in America, especially the ills caused by the Left.
AND you should note that America's been safe from major terrorism UNTIL Obama and his cronies started being soft on anti-American sentiment and such. America needs to maintain our strong military; now we just need an actual leader who doesn't play political games with the lives of our fighting men and women.
I'm specifically aiming to the right in this post seeing as the right make an extra special point about a 'strong military', without offering any consistent description of 'strong'. But ultimately, a large military is to the detriment of the security of the people no matter who is in charge. The anti-war left has basically gone walkabout since Obama has been in charge, leaving him to extend and worsen Bush's wars of aggression. I don't see how he's being 'soft' in the slightest.
It's the assumption that in order to beat extremist Islam we have to be extreme ourselves that exacerbates the situation and endangers everybody's lives.
A system that requires 'the right man' in charge to work is a bad system.
John McCain agrees more with Obama than the anti-war Right:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mccain-and … in-a-tree/
I disagree about the welfare state being stupid- it should only be a safety net for those who fall on hard times, are ill, disabled etc. Not to support corporations and greedy tax avoiders who want free labour. I do agree with the rest though. I'm one of those old lefty anti-war types I'm afraid. But I think there are worse things that I could be. I just *knew* there were some things we'd agree on, Innersmiff.
Exaggerating just a little aren't you? I don't find anyone in unwavering support of the military. I don't find anyone thinking that the military people are putting the nation at war; that is the prerogative of the politicians. The soldiers just die after being sent there, they don't start the war.
Criticizing the failures of the military isn't criticizing the nation as a whole. An unrestrained military would certainly be a disaster - thank goodness it is well restrained by our terrific politicians (sarcasm here).
However, voting for an "anti-war lefty" that proceeds to cut the military beyond what is needed for protection is stupid. We NEED a strong military; we just also need to learn to use it less.
Isn't "defending the country with whatever it takes" unwavering support of the military? You're quite happy to accept the deaths of civilans every day from drone strikes if it kills at least some terrorists. That's a moral outrage to me. And you're telling me you've never heard any conservative tell someone who's anti-war that they're un-American?
I wonder how big the military actually needs to be. Is three times the rest of the world's military combined not adequate to protect the lands of the US?
I'm not conservative or liberal. If you look up the word, "independent", in the dictionary; you will find my picture.
I perceive our military as I do our police. They protect us.
'Perceive' being the key word here. I wonder how protected you feel every time you hear about 6 or so children being blown up by drones.
The "welfare state", not only helps those in need, it is one of the best economic stimulus programs the government could invest in. The money almost immediately goes back in to the economy. Imagine if the almost one trillion dollar stimulus package was given to individuals instead of greedy banks. The economy would have instantly received a boost! Instead, where is that money? What benefit did the taxpayer receive for the redistribution of their wealth.
Military spending, though providing jobs, mostly goes to support the corporate race.
paradigmsearch, we are part of the smallest minority, we are individuals!
Are you implying that the money is neatly stacked, rubber band wound, in the vaults of banks? I don't think so...
It is spent, Wildnerness. It goes back into the economy. In the Uk even the likes of Tesco are trying to pressure Osbourne into pulling back from austerity, the high street are suffering too.
First it is pulled out of the economy before it is put in. Some of it is stolen from our grand children before it is put in too. More of it is stolen from our elderly before it is put back in.
Austerity isn't all unicorns and roses, rather it is the long-term solution. We survived a 30% cut in our budget in one year in the past. Now we can barely get by after a 3% cut, because we are doing it stupidly.
Sometimes war is necessary, but I don't hold our defence budget as a sacred cow that can't be touched. It's full of waste.
How is it pulled out of the economy before it is put in?
Taxation and misappropriation of funds.
Every dollar the government spends comes from somewhere else. Every. Single. One.
It could be one that was just taken out of a citizen's wallet, or it could be one taken out of our future economy, but every dollar is taken out before it is put back in.
Jaxson, you're confusing your govt. with mine. Taxation is lower (supposedly) we have a conservative coalition- and the right are all about small govt. and lower taxes, right?
I'm not confusing anything. Every dollar spent by government has to come from somewhere. Tax rates have nothing to do with it. Government cannot create money.
You asked the question, I answered it. I fail to see what the problem is.
Government cannot spend money without, in one way or another, taking that same money out of the economy in the first place.
What benefit did the American human race receive from the stimulus packages? The wealth was given to the corporate race to assist them in overcoming their bad business practices. Yet the people are worse off now than they were before the corporate welfare!
We both know how the corrupt central banking system works, don't we? Fractional reserve lending, unnecessary interest payments, the control of busts and booms based on the manipulation of credit, etc...
I completely agree with you, but 'welfare stimulus' comes from the same fallacious school of thought: that money can be moved around in such a way to stimulate the economy, i.e. the broken window fallacy: a broken shop window might create work for the glass-maker but prevents that money from being spent at the tailor instead.
Stimulus spending and growth association is not a theory it is proven beyond debate, we can argue it's long term effects and that it is easily abused but every economic study shows that welfare accelerates the transit of value through the economy which inevitably leads to growth and thus grows market confidence aside from it's humanitarian, crime prevention and stabilizing effect of course.
Economic studies show that stimulus props up an economy, for sure, but neglects to account for the epic slump that inevitably accompanies it. A recession that allows resources to be allocated more effectively by the market. But the statists, ever keen to find solutions that involve more government jobs, blame the market's immune system as a 'sign' that capitalism doesn't work and goes about it again. This has been the cycle for about a hundred years now. The bubble of the 1960s resulted in the slump of the 1970s. The Fed-created housing bubble resulting in the slump of 2008. And it's been shown that when the government has taken a relatively lassiez-faire approach when there is a slump, recessions have been shorter and less damaging.
Stimulus proponents cannot perceive that it does not work, and this is why they never bother to look at the possible unintended consequences of it.
As I said we can debate the long term effects and that it can easily be overused but that is besides the point, absolutely no data backs the implication that all welfare stimulus inevitably creates a bubble at best it's your opinion, really the theory says quite the opposite, bubbles are based on an inflated desire for an asset or item beyond it's real value, welfare in most forms does not and cannot do that.
Without assistance, people will not just lay down and die. Even if they want jobs, there are none to be had, so their only recourse would be to take what they need to survive.
You guys gotta remember that Miff is a hardcore, albeit consistent libertarian. Libertarians don't like the welfare or warfare state.
Those of you who have interacted with me know I am a hardcore liberal, so obviously I will disagree about the welfare state.
However, the warfare state, equipped with big brother surveillance and the blood of countless innocent civilians, would be much more destructive to me even if I agreed with every single criticism of the welfare state.
You people need to read 1984.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 24 months ago
Conservatives & Moderates, do you strongly contend that Liberals in America want America to bea BIG, WELFARE state? Why do Liberals contend that people should pay TAXES to support useless services & programs instead of logically & maturely realize that people should...
by Sooner28 6 years ago
Okay, this is really about neoceons, as you probably guessed by the title.My question is a simple one: Why are the people who most strongly support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not willing to pay for them? The same people who want a giant defense budget and wars in every country (Syria,...
by uncorrectedvision 7 years ago
If you have read Animal Farm none of what we currently face is news. However, the point of the ever growing welfare state is to put more people into a government preserve and using their political support to enslave those unlucky enough to be working."We're living in an economy where...
by Sarah 4 years ago
Do you think the European Welfare State, as we know it, is condemned to end?
by Brad NOYFB 24 months ago
Can California be called a Welfare State?
by Brad NOYFB 24 months ago
Where do most of the enemies of the US live?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|