Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

What i am saying there are those of us who aren't buying the welfare state because it has become "too big to fai"

Second.

I realize that... That was clear in your first post.

So why do you bother in this topic if you aren't

Willing to answer questions? I have answered

Plenty of yours. Where do the people who are

On the rolls of welfare go when you unleash

Them? It's a logical question in a world that

Expects logic. Where do they go? If you want to

Change America you will have to convince the

Electorate first. It's only logical to start here

Originally posted by neo96

Go ahead and gut the military, Go put millions out of work who will end right back up on government programs.

That is millions of civilians and billions and trillions lost that is currently being used to fund those social programs,

That has already been said in this thread don't know why people just can't read the thread instead of rehashing what has already been answered.

Oh mostly likely because they don't like the answer.

It is important to clarify what you mean by "gut the military".

There are currently 1.5 million active duty and 1.5 reserve duty personel. Total budget is 550 billion per year not including the black budget which some say accounts for another 50% tacked on.

Why in the world do we need 3 million personel unless we want to engage in countless foreign conflicts&occupations? And why in the world do we need so many f-117s and b-2 bombers?

The russians and chinese are turning into full capitalist nations like we have always been. We been encroaching into russian&chinese territory, which is what most of asia(including the middle east) is, and coming close to world war 3 due to the pesky israelis prodding us for revenge.

Do you not see a problem with this? I sure as hell do, when we can't sustain our own economy and pay to sustain people who have no job to live. Not to mention NASA has died quietly but painfully none the less.

I think we only need half of the current actives and reserves. Then stop spending for new technology that is useless outside the military theater. The russians and chinese have no reason to engage us if we leave them alone.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Did anyone bother reading this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here are currently 1.5 million active duty and 1.5 reserve duty personel. Total budget is 550 billion per year not including the black budget which some say accounts for another 50% tacked on.

We are spending more on welfare.my problems are with 120 million American who would perish if the government did.

reply to post by Beanskinner


The only answer people want to hear is me agreeing with the concept of welfare which is never going to happen. I could sit here and write post and post,never going to matter.

The only thing they want to hear is welfare is good,welfare is awesome, guess they really want me to sit here and lie to them and just say it's all great and dandy.

Sorry never going to happen people are entitled to their opinions of the subject such as the the topic, "Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity".

I believe in charity.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Did anyone bother reading this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here are currently 1.5 million active duty and 1.5 reserve duty personel. Total budget is 550 billion per year not including the black budget which some say accounts for another 50% tacked on.

We are spending more on welfare.my problems are with 120 million American who would perish if the government did.

edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I am not denying the fact there is welfare abuse and too many people on the system taking out more than they put in, but who created all these problems in the first place? Isn't it too late to worry about welfare and instead start creating/returning jobs, cutting down on the military?

I don't hate the military at all. I was in rotc in high school and enjoyed it very much. I have been to military bases in new jersey and it was a wonderful experience. I am simply saying we need to make government as efficient as possible in all arenas.

Maybe it is too late though and only a revolution can change america. I don't really know what to think!

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

The only answer people want to hear is me agreeing with the concept of welfare which is never going to happen. I could sit here and write post and post,never going to matter.

The only thing they want to hear is welfare is good,welfare is awesome, guess they really want me to sit here and lie to them and just say it's all great and dandy.

Sorry never going to happen people are entitled to their opinions of the subject such as the the topic, "Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity".

I believe in charity.

edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

That is because you have such an inordinate love affair with the military, you have allowed that to blind you with all the other all-encompassing aspects of the government. Government runs the show regardless what you may think of the constitution.

Face it, you don't hate the government at all. You just hate welfare, think everyone is lazy, obummer is a closet communist from kenya, clinton is a progressive, yada, yada, yada. It is getting old! You and the OP are opportunists of the highest order. Goverment is A-ok as long as it is right wing and to help it stay that way a little libel of what the democrats are doesn't hurt either, does it?

reply to post by neo96


You still have not answered the question asked of you my friend. You ask that we answer yours and become very frustrated when the answer is not one you agree with but you make no attempt whatsoever to answer ours. I would very much like to see an answer that does not support a welfare state. Or are you telling us that you believe there isn't one and those who are left hanging should just rot? Which leads me to believe that you are in a very round about manner admitting defeat. Go ahead, prove me wrong, I want you to. And no, you do not have to support the idea of a welfare state in doing so, you do not believe you have to, so give us your own opinion on how we would handle those left hanging. Or are you admitting here and now that you what you desire would not work, keep in mind that I am not claiming that it will not, from your own reactions it is clear to me that you seem to be under the belief that it might not though. Please, prove otherwise, as I have said, I want you to.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

That is because you have such an inordinate love affair with the military, you have allowed that to blind you with all the other all-encompassing aspects of the government. Government runs the show regardless what you may think of the constitution.

Says the people who have an inordinate love affair with the welfare complex. that has blinded them to the cold hard reality of a nation that can not even pay it's bills,but to keep the status quo.

Face it, you don't hate the government at all. You just hate welfare, think everyone is lazy, obummer is a closet communist from kenya, clinton is a progressive, yada, yada, yada. It is getting old! You and the OP are opportunists of the highest order. Goverment is A-ok as long as it is right wing and to help it stay that way a little libel of what the democrats are doesn't hurt either, does it?

Fact it people don't hate welfare they just hate the only thing that makes us all possible,even that welfare they love so much as to the rest off topic.

reply to post by Maslo


Your laughable assertion that a "[citation needed]" draws attention to the fact that you either did not read, or ignored both doomedtoday's insistence that sources not be provided here:

I'm not asking for sources that you believe answer the question, rather your own opinions and explanations for why your idea is the right one and how it would work if placed in effect.

And of course, my acknowledgment of this request, and making clear I had honored that here:

By your rules you do not want links so you are going to have to take my word for this, but compulsory education laws in the U.S. did not begin until Massachusetts implemented such legislation in 1852. It would be 15 years before another state followed suit, and by 1918 all states had adopted compulsory education bills.

And here:

Now, I've answered your questions sans links as you've demanded. I now have a demand, if you choose to argue these points - which is your right - I ask you to provide links with verifiable sources to back up your arguments.

Drawing attention to the fact that you either ignored, or simply failed to read this now casts suspicion on the link you provided, and whether you bothered to actually read that source in its entirety. I have also, in another thread, most recently pointed out that I cannot convert these PDF files you keep linking, so I am unable to read in its entirety any PDF files you link. I can read them if they are emailed to me where I can click view. Are you willing to U2U me so I can give you my email address, or will you ignore this too, and just keep linking PDF files you know I can't read?

Since I cannot read this source in its entirety, I see no point in speaking to it, and since I am now free of the unreasonable restriction doomedtoday placed upon me - and given my last two threads you had to know I am more than ready to provide any [citation needed] - I will now offer up these sources that show that the welfare policies have indeed been falsified:

Falsifying Government:

Lester argues that the conjecture that liberty is compatible with welfare (or other cardinal values) has not been falsified. He defends the thesis against common efforts to falsify it. If the “compatibility thesis” has not been falsified, he argues, we should not prefer coercion over liberty.

Like a good Popperian, Lester invites everyone to falsify his central conjecture. He will not lack attempts. A whole subfield of economics—general welfare economics—seeks to show that economic liberty leads to suboptimal outcomes for welfare. I pursue here one case that strikes me as difficult.

...

This line of argument, if it withstands criticism, would cast doubt on the compatibility thesis. But the argument might be extended. In the case outlined above, many imagine that the state could actually get prices correct by imposing taxes on the polluter thereby using force in service to welfare.

At this point, the burden of proof has shifted: the advocate of the state has made a conjecture subject to falsification. If the conjecture is falsified (by robust evidence of government failure, for example), the compatibility theory may be restored. Surely this is a common result: the case against the compatibility of liberty and welfare will often involve asserting that government can improve outcomes in fact as well as in theory.

This argument, and the effort to falsify is predicated on the understanding that welfare (as mandated by Constitution in the Preamble) cannot be antithetical to liberty.

I am inclined to think that a policy or program that fails to reach its goals should be viewed as a conjecture that has been falsified. Does that conclusion follow? After all, a proponent of a failed program/conjecture could simply say we did not spend enough, the program will work with small changes, or we did not wait long enough for its effects. None of these responses violate critical rationalism. Indeed, they suggest additional testing. Still, at some point, a program will exhaust its alternatives and become falsified (and publicly seen as a failure). Perhaps something like this happened with Aid to Families with Dependent Children in the United States from 1936 to 1996.

I will begin the next post with Samples final paragraph of his argument, which has been a necessary place to begin with to put in context the idea of falsifying government policies.

Continued....

reply to post by Maslo

Lester is right to join philosophy and social science. But I believe his defense of the compatibility thesis implies that government actions are an ongoing series of conjectures subject to falsification. Such testing, if taken seriously, would offer a another path to a more limited government.

Indeed!

Now, let us take a look at Jeja-Pekka Roos article: Welfare Theory and Social Policy: A Study in Policy Science, Issue 4

The traditional excuse for avoiding a definition of welfare, has been that this would naturally involve value judgments, and therefore could not be considered proper scientific activity.

Most of welfare economics has accepted this traditional view and has consequently not promoted nor attempted a definition of welfare...Indeed, Archibald's famous assertion that welfare needs no definition, has obviously been approved by the majority of welfare economists.

In the field of philosophy, ethics has dealt surprisingly little with the problems of welfare, although there have been some more relevant analyses. But the main weakness of philosophical analysis, for our purposes, it its conceptuality. For the more central a concept is, the less its relevant properties are brought to light through 'normal' conceptual study. Von Wright, for example, avoids many of the most pertinent aspects completely (such as the problem of social welfare), undoubtedly due to the fact that the analysis of such concepts presupposes and demands a strong background in the analysis of society. However, a wide spectrum of important principles and conceptual difficulties have been analyzed in philosophical literature which makes it a source of valuable reference material.

Here the author is establishing first a lack of definition for welfare, and further a lack of necessary analysis.

The analysis of welfare is part of the analysis of goodness. The complicated nature of the latter concept will not be dwelt upon here: for a list of the various aspects of goodness see Von Wright and Frankena. There are many other aspects of goodness to that of welfare alone. However, many such aspects would actually be combined with welfare if understood in a wider sense: for example, the technical goodness of man, and especially health.

The second factor contributing to the new welfare economists nihilistic attitudes towards definitions of welfare - namely the problem of who or what is in a position to determine the meaning of welfare - seems more interesting. The undisputed dictum of welfare economics has been that individual is the best judge of his own welfare, and although it is naturally conceded that instances occur when the individual might be mistaken, as a general principle this axiom is still rigidly adhered to. This principle has led to especially the assertion that representatives of society lack the ability to make deductions about its members' welfare except by observing how they act, or by asking them. Should we proceed to generalize on the basis of this point of view, it would appear fruitless to analyze people's welfare objectively, that is, from the outside. In its strictest sense this principle implies that welfare is an entirely subjective affair, with no objective elements. Ultimately, however, this extreme derivative would be unlikely to gain much support.

The author, acknowledging first that the entire notion of welfare is wholly subjective, secondly acknowledges that this extreme position would unlikely be popular among economists, politicians, and even probably the people.

Probably most would agree with Von Wright that welfare is composed of causal and axiological components but concurrence about what is actually objectively measurable and what is not, is extremely difficult to arrive at. Even this solution may appear to be too mechanical: welfare cannot be divided into 'measurable' and 'unmeasurable' components (for the opposite view see Noponen 1971: 15).

It is a fair conclusion Roos has reached in asserting that welfare is not see easily measured, and certainly not as easy as you think it is.

The simple answer to falsification is this: Both liberty and welfare are components of Constitutional principles, but if welfare is implemented by way of taxation (force) then it is antithetical to liberty and what would arise is a contradiction within the contradiction so as to render that document invalid.

Continued...

reply to post by Maslo

Children are not property of the parents, but separate persons, and as separate persons they have certain rights, such as a right to receive basic education. They should not pay for stupidity of their parents.

I never declared that children were property of parents, and it is equally true that children are certainly not property of government. You have declared a right to receive a basic education, and I would not disagree with this, however, no other right is funded by government and in this distinction you undo yourself. The right to speech is not funded by government, nor are there any statutes of compulsory speech. The right to free exercise of religion is has no business being funded by government and is expressly forbidden by the Establishment Clause. The right to press is not funded by government. The right to peaceably assemble is not funded by government. Nor are any of these rights expressly compulsory by statute. The right to keep and bear arms is not funded by government, nor are there any compulsory statutes demanding people do keep and bear arms.

Outside of the most imprudent funding of religious establishments of late, the only enumerated rights that could be fairly classified as "funded" rights would be the right to a speedy trial, assistance of counsel and any right that is enumerated describing the individuals right to due process of law. It is understandable why government must pick up the expense of due process, but not so understandable why government must pick up the tab for a basic education. People have the right to life, but government is not responsible for the expense of that life. People have the right to liberty, but government is not responsible for the expense of any individuals liberty, and people have the right to pursue happiness but government does not have to pick up the tab for that.

You disingenuously ask me if I am sure if there "would be enough (scholarships) to pay for all of them" without a hint of irony. If you are so convinced that there would not be enough scholarships to go around, why are you so convinced there is enough taxable income to do so?

Anecdotal evidence.

Again you, and I would say stupidly at this point, pretend that doomedtoday did not expressly ask me to just give my opinion on the matter. I honored that request, do you know what honor is?

Unless you show that private charity would be able to help all those people as universally as welfare, it would still be inferior. Noone is saying private charity cannot help people. But can it do it as well as state welfare systems? Or would it help a fraction of the people, and leave others without a help? That is the question.

Stop pretending that you've shown that welfare does what you're demanding of me. You have not, and you ignore the campaign problems Obama faces in colleges regarding their legitimate concerns. You've ignored the evidence of failure of welfare in just L.A. alone, and you ignore any data that contradicts your knee jerk beliefs. Hell, you ignored the express wishes of doomedtoday, of which I honored, just to pretend you are a smooth operator.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

*reads your worn-out talking points, learns nothing new*

"has read that same tired old excuse called welfare and has created the largest welfare state in existence and is on the path of Greece."

Before there was charity now their is entitlement because people "believe" they are owed something for merely existing in this world..

I agree haven't learned anything new,people are writing checks they can't cash and the money has dried up but hey let's keep doing what we have been doing for the greater good of the "great society".

edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT THAT EVER EXISTED PROVIDED SOME FORM OF WELFARE.

You are SERIOUSLY not living in the real world right now.

You would have to entirely eliminate government to eliminate taxation, regulation, and welfare systems.

However, if you MAINTAIN GOVERNMENTS then you will inevitably have taxation, regulation, and welfare.

The INTELLIGENT and non-delusional thing to do is to TAX wisely REGULATE wisely and provide GOOD welfare. The best deal is the best deal. How the hell do you not understand this???

The problem is NOT welfare. The problem is not balancing the BUDGET. I swear to god you're being paid to troll here, neo96... because you are nothing but unsubstantiated talking points and a refusal to admit defeat, even after being defeated constantly and overwhelmingly in both facts and ideas.

Yes. Humans are owed something for merely existing in this world, it's called HUMAN RIGHTS. A human should not be born into the world and into oppression, slavery, poverty, abuse, disease, starvation, warfare, tyranny, and/or gross inequality. THESE ARE SIMPLE HUMAN RIGHTS, they can be agreed upon by ANYONE with half a brain and half a heart. The aim should be to MAXIMIZE human rights for as many humans as possible... and if it pisses off a few tyrants, wealthy people/businesses, bullies/abusers, or gluttons, then SO BE IT.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

You would have to entirely eliminate government to eliminate taxation, regulation, and welfare systems.

Stop being so histrionic. The income taxation that you seem to think is the only form of and only way Congress can tax did not exist until 1913, and only one other time in America's history did Congress pass an income tax, to pay for the debt of the Civil War and it was repealed once the debt was paid.

As to the rest of your argument, I'll let James Madison answer:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

~James Madison, remarks on the House floor, debates on Cod Fishery bill, (February 1792)~

I'll let Thomas Jefferson answer:

“[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.”

~Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825~

Of course, I suppose your argument would be that these venerable Founders were not living in the real world, or would arrogantly propose that in the "real world" today they would agree with you...not likely.

Alright so we don't need welfare in any form. Then is it so unfair to claim that tax payer dollars should not fund the military unless we are in a time of war that over 50% of the citizens support? I mean we don't need welfare in any shape form or fashion. So lets stop giving other countries our money, lets stop putting it into offense and only use it for defense. No money to support education and no money to support businesses in any form. I could accept this as fair if we were to take everything from everyone and start fresh. Nobody would be given anything, literally everyone would have to make their own way with nothing, same as the poor, the only difference being that there are no poor because we all start from the same point. Okay maybe that's way out there... so how about this:

At the age of 18 years children are required to leave home and parents, family, or friends cannot under any circumstances provide in any way for those new adults. There would be no welfare at all, from government or private. This would mean that it really doesn't matter if some wouldn't receive the supposed goodwill of others because everyone would get the exact same thing to start with in life. In such a scenario would it not be truly up to the individual to go out and obtain for themselves anything they wanted or needed? Nobody would be able to rightfully scream they are being treated unfairly because such would not be the case. There would be no poor, middle class, or rich young adults, it would be completely up to the individual which social class they choose to insert themselves into, based solely on their own actions.

Does it sound crazy? I don't know you tell me, I don't really think it sounds any crazier than anything else going on in America today. People would have no legitimate claim that something has been taken away and nothing would have been given either. This sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

reply to post by doomedtoday


Of course, since you've declared you find it difficult to read sourced material I suppose it is a given that you didn't even bother to read the sourced material I posted in reply to Maslo who took full advantage of my honoring your lame request to not link sourced material and attacked my arguments of opinion you asked for.

I am not going to dumb my posts down for you any longer, nor am I going to show you any sympathy because you cannot be bothered to read source material that refuted the opinion you just posted even before you made it.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT THAT EVER EXISTED PROVIDED SOME FORM OF WELFARE.

To the extent that we all know now? Welfare today is nothing close to how it began.

You are SERIOUSLY not living in the real world right now.

The people who can't face we are broke are not living in the real world.

You would have to entirely eliminate government to eliminate taxation, regulation, and welfare systems.

As taxation,regulation and welfare systems currently stand they all are a far cry of what they were meant to be.

The INTELLIGENT and non-delusional thing to do is to TAX wisely REGULATE wisely and provide GOOD welfare. The best deal is the best deal. How the hell do you not understand this???

The intelligent,non-delusional thing to do is,knowing the current system is flawed and is not working as it was designed to, and how the hell do people not understand this.

The problem is NOT welfare. The problem is not balancing the BUDGET. I swear to god you're being paid to troll here, neo96... because you are nothing but unsubstantiated talking points and a refusal to admit defeat, even after being defeated constantly and overwhelmingly in both facts and ideas.

Personal snip aside, the problem is 120 million Americans currently on the government payroll,

Yes. Humans are owed something for merely existing in this world, it's called HUMAN RIGHTS. A human should not be born into the world and into oppression, slavery, poverty, abuse, disease, starvation, warfare, tyranny, and/or gross inequality.

Rather odd comment to make when the method to provide all those "human rights" is to use tyranny to violate the rights of others,to fund that fanaticism.

THESE ARE SIMPLE HUMAN RIGHTS, they can be agreed upon by ANYONE with half a brain and half a heart.

Anyone with half an brain and half a heart knows you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

The aim should be to MAXIMIZE human rights for as many humans as possible... and if it pisses off a few tyrants, wealthy people/businesses, bullies/abusers, or gluttons, then SO BE IT.

Right be a tyrant to save the people from the so called tyrants.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by doomedtoday

 

Of course, since you've declared you find it difficult to read sourced material I suppose it is a given that you didn't even bother to read the sourced material I posted in reply to Maslo who took full advantage of my honoring your lame request to not link sourced material and attacked my arguments of opinion you asked for.

I am not going to dumb my posts down for you any longer, nor am I going to show you any sympathy because you cannot be bothered to read source material that refuted the opinion you just posted even before you made it.

Which of the material you posted refutes what I have suggested in the last post and how so? Hell what does it have to do with my last post? I'm not seeing it, maybe I am just too dumb. I will not lie to you on this night, my best traits are of the maths and sciences and I am a sometimes C mostly B student in the languages at the University level, so yes, maybe I am indeed too dumb to understand what it is exactly that I am reading. Could we put it in the form of a mathematical equation by any chance? My wife, an A student in the languages and an amateur author has also (unwillingly though it may have been) read the source material you have posted in attempt to help me see exactly how it is that the material refutes anything that my last post stated cannot see how it does so either. So am I to assume this must mean that everyone who is not you is simply too unintelligent to see your point?

My last post was not arguing for either side. Can you not see that? Though I may have started the post rather poorly, I did go on to suggest a legitimate and unquestionably fair idea of which I am pretty sure many of the people posting on either side of the argument in this thread will disagree with but I am unsure as to why... I am only asking out of respect for your intelligence how exactly my suggestion is not perfectly fair for everyone. I did read

www.libertarianism.org...
The Falsifying Government thing.

in its entirety but I only read what you posted from the book because well its a freakin book man. So I have actually read and reared your sourced material in order to try to analyze and figure out how exactly it refutes my last suggestion, yet I am just not seeing it. So I have to ask if the refuting you speak of can be found in what you have provided here for us or would one have to actually read the book you have linked us to?

I'm not going to ask you to respond again to the questions you have already answered but I'm sure that you are very aware that you have intentionally avoided answering the questions that I asked in the manner that I asked because in doing so it is very likely that you would have had to contradict some of the points you have been fighting so hard to prove, or admit to us all that you have little compassion for other human lives - which I honestly doubt to be the case. The only thing you have done in answering my questions was to confirm my theory that you do not want to figure out what baby steps might be necessary in order to make what you would like to see happen actually happen. You must know that history has proven time and time again that we cannot successfully make something out of nothing, that first steps are a necessity to success. You seem to want the results without knowing how to get them, if I am wrong I'm very willing to watch you prove it without simply repeating yourself - I do not want you to have to waste your time as I place more value in it than that.

To assume that I am not reading the material you have been posting would be false, I am reading it and I can see why you believe it might refute some of the opinions stated but I just cannot seem to find the "click" in my head for me to understand how it refutes my suggestion of completely changing our system so that EVERYONE would start with the exact same at the age of 18, having nothing given to them and nothing taken from them. Please explain how that could be considered unfair in any way other than people complaining about how they are unable to rely on the fruits of others hard earned lifestyles. Why would it not work? There would be no need for welfare and from my point of view nobody would get screwed because they were the victim of unlucky circumstance. Everyone would have an equal opportunity to do with their life what they would like however they would like, it would be completely up to the individual and nobody else if they are to be successful or not. Or am I somehow mistaken and if so how?

Why are so many of you acting as though you have ill feelings toward one another, can we not have a debate without hate...

reply to post by doomedtoday


You were yammering on and on about "welfare of any form", and of course in your limited scope of understanding of "welfare" you simply view it as hand - outs given by the government via wealth redistribution which is plunder. You cannot possibly imagine that the welfare of a nation has so much more involved than wealth redistribution programs, and it is quite obvious to even the weakest of minds that it is indeed debatable whether wealth redistribution programs have anything at all to do with welfare.

Welfare is so poorly defined, except for the greedy little pigs who salivate at any notion of wealth redistribution. Of course, this poorly defined welfare was addressed by Roos, but as you stated you couldn't grasp it. It was also pointed out by Samples that welfare implemented through force is antithetical to liberty, which again, I suppose went way over your head.

I told you I was not going to dumb my posts down for you any longer because you cannot act honorably. Big surprise given what you advocate, yet here you are demanding I dumb my posts down. Well, I'm not going to do it. If you cannot grasp these simple concepts that is on you.

You could care less about welfare in any sense other than wealth redistribution, and your advocacy of plunder is hardly worthy of admiration.

You are entitled to your opinions, and had you the honor to step up and correct Maslo when he took advantage of me honoring your request to simply offer my opinion and point out that Maslo's tactics were foul play, then I would take a different attitude towards you now, but in the end you sat by and watched that foul play with nary a word.

You want to pretend your self righteous indignation is righteousness, but the righteous see right through you. If you want to be treated honorably, then act honorably. If you cannot grasp the simple concepts sourced then what makes you think your opinion is anything other than ill informed?
\

welfare of any form"

Because there is a profound difference between welfare of the state and a military being a vital necessity to ensure a free state, and "general welfare" of people is a apples to oranges comparison.

Because that money spent on the military is funding the welfare of the state and the people,who can in turn go to work,live,get educated,and everything else they do.

Every single person benefits from military spending conversely the only people who benefit from "welfare" spending as we all know only benefit those who receive that government check each month,.

Is this how stupid the world is??

Some people don't even clock out, they just keep going on and on and on...like the energiser bunny!