USA Politics

It depends ... there are branches of libertarians. I think virtually all know that government will revert to the 1700s, but most (wisely IMO) seek a combination of a reduction in government and/or functions moving down the branches of federalism and more economic and social liberty for individuals.
 
Mosh said:
You know, there's been quite a few times in this thread where you've been asked to give an explanation on something you've said and you either flat out ignored it or simply repeated a previous post. Just saying.
Click to expand...
And there have been quite a few times when people on here have straightened me out about things I posted and I then agreed with what they said.
 
Libertarians want the government to have as little power as possible. A lot of them tend to be against programs like FDA and the United States' involvement in the UN. It gets more complicated than that, but that's a basic definition

Travis The Dragon said:
And there have been quite a few times when people on here have straightened me out about things I posted and I then agreed with what they said.
Click to expand...
That has very little to do with my post but OK.
 
Mosh said:
Libertarians want the government to have as little power as possible. A lot of them tend to be against programs like FDA and the United States' involvement in the UN. It gets more complicated than that, but that's a basic definition
Click to expand...


The as possible part is where you see variation. There are hardcore people that want virtually no government, there is a federalist wing that wants government moved down to the states, and there are those that are more pragmatic that want to reduce government. But I think in all cases there is a case where states, private enterprise/people could take over functions that the federal government currently provides much better and more effective. And of course there are Democrats and Republicans that have libertarian leanings in some issues, but not others.
 
I think Libertarianism can be a good thing and I like the basic idea of a reduced government. The problem is that you get libertarians like Ron Paul who push the ideal to the point where common sense is thrown out the window and they start to get ridiculous. Some government programs are good.
 
bearfan said:
The as possible part is where you see variation. There are hardcore people that want virtually no government, there is a federalist wing that wants government moved down to the states, and there are those that are more pragmatic that want to reduce government. But I think in all cases there is a case where states, private enterprise/people could take over functions that the federal government currently provides much better and more effective. And of course there are Democrats and Republicans that have libertarian leanings in some issues, but not others.
Click to expand...
That's really the problem I have with it. They're all over the place. I think it's a more useful ideal when people have a libertarian leaning. It doesn't seem to work with every situation. But then again, every form of government is like that in my opinion.
 
I think that is pretty typical of any movement or idea once you get much beyond 20 people. Though I think the common thread is less government at the federal level and an underlying belief that being an American certainly comes with rights, but also responsibilities as a citizen .. which is beyond what the government tell you to do (ie taxes)
 
Generally not a fan of this site, but I think there are some stats to back this up and it is disgusting

There's another element to the large entitlment spending that no-one is even talking about and is even worse now than food stamps...Disability Coverage

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...lfare-Combined


Govt. Spends More on Disability than Food Stamps, Welfare Combined

In an eye-opening six-month investigation into America’s disability program, Planet Money reporter Chana Joffe-Walt uncovered a “disability industrial complex” fraught with fraud that churns out 14 million checks every month to citizens the government has deemed disabled.



“Since the economy began its slow, slow recovery in late 2009, we’ve been averaging about 150,000 jobs created per month,” said Joffe-Walt in an Public Radio International (PRI) “This American Life” interview. “In that same period every month, almost 250,000 people have been applying for disability.”

Among Joffe-Walt’s findings are the following facts:


•The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it does on food stamps and welfare combined; America’s two largest disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, costs taxpayers $260 billion a year

•In some parts of the country, such as Hale County, Alabama, one out of every four working-age adults collects a disability check

•As of 2011, 33.8% of newly diagnosed disabled workers cited “back pain and other musculoskeletal problems” as their reason for being unable to work. In 1961, the top reason for being disabled was “heart disease, stroke”

•Disabled workers do not get counted in the unemployment figures. If they did, the numbers would be far higher

•Less than 1% of people who went on disability at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce

•The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program—which covers kids and adults—has exploded. SSI is now seven times larger than it was 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
 
I've seen that as well. The problem with that article is that every "damning" fact is easily explained, and when you think about it for awhile, makes a hell of a lot of sense. Disability *should* be a higher expense than food stamps or welfare, because there are more people that meet the definition of disabled.
 
I question the disability threshold. For example, I have what this article says is the most common disability claim and get my ass to work. I can understand for people who work with in a profession that requires manual labor. But I personally have seen people go on disability with "back problems", that are nowhere near severe enough to qualify for disability benefits. Stress is a semi common disability now, being too obese and other nonsense crap. I have have no problem at all supporting those who genuinely not work, but I feel this is being seriously taken advantage of by both the people claiming the benefit, lower level "doctors" who base their practices on these people, and of course lawyers who sue over the ailment (who clearly make enough to advertise constantly on TV that they can get you disability and other compensation)

In principle, the program is fine, in practice it is abused.
 
Well, first of all, the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. I'm sure the instance of fraudulent claims has increased since the slowdown - or perhaps that is due to jobs that can be done by disabled people dropping off, as well. Hard to say.

Having gone and read the NPR article, it seems that they are trying to draw a correlation between the 1996 welfare reform and the increase of disability. I'm genuinely curious how legitimate this might be. People shouldn't game the system - but maybe it suggests that forcing people off welfare is a bad idea too.
 
I am well aware it was an anecdote. But I will say if I have seen it (and virtually everyone I know works for a living), it probably exists in decent numbers.

Not the most en vogue thing to say, but I would like to see a return of "a burden to society" back in the vocabulary. There are some burdens society should bear, people who legitimately cannot work ever again, people who cannot work in their trade and need time to get other skills, people who need temporary help. But with few exceptions, welfare should not be a life long proposition and those that are on welfare for extended periods (who reasonably can) should be expected to do something to give back to the society they are a burden to.
 
A non anecdote

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/usa-railroad-fraud-idUSN1E79Q0TY20111027


More details in the article, but this gives the gist of it


Oct 27 (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors on Thursday charged 11 people in connection with an alleged $1 billion fraud involving hundreds of railroad workers filing false disability claims.
In some cases workers claimed they were unable to work even while they played golf, shoveled snow or rode bikes, the complaint says.
mention_en.png

​

Former Long Island Railroad workers, doctors and a federal railroad agency employee are accused of participating in the scheme in which employees filed disability claims shortly before they retired. The move allowed them to get disability pay on top of their retirement pension, prosecutors said.
Click to expand...
 
There are entirely too many people in this country who are living off welfare, unfortunately I believe it has become so engrained that you'll never be able to end it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top