Mitt Romney Visits Subsidized Farms, Knocks Big Government Spending
In front of federally subsidized cows, Romney reiterated his opposition to big-government spending. Wayne Barrett speaks to the cows’ owners, who say they dislike Obama even while they take government money.
Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
If I see all the government spending as beneficial then I would support government spending that others might see as "excessive". It is true that not all government spending will not be considered beneficial by everyone.
We might see or experience the outcome but we don't really see what might be spent on that program. Or maybe we do see the total spending but we don't see the outcomes of that spending to see whether it truly is "good". When we are detached from the planning and/or outcome of this spending we might oppose it without having all the facts.
The people who receive this money know how much of an impact it has upon them but they may not know that this program costs..oh say....$7.6 billion. Similarly, wonks who read about the budget passed by congress might see the $7.6 billion but not truly know the outcome of that spending. Both are removed from an important part of the process of allocating and utilizing government funds and subjectively form their opinions based on their own individual experience and assumptions.
"Good" "big" government spending is justified and proper. That "other" "excessive" government spending is wasteful and ill-conceived.
I'm not arguing that all government spending good. Don't misunderstand that. What I am saying is that our perspective during that process affects our outlook regarding its legitimacy. They are not necessarily being hypocrites. Their own experience and their particular assumptions have made this supposed hypocrisy to be actually philosophically consistent with their views.
I think that "wasteful" spending can still be "useful" but the funds would have to be "efficiently" spent. What "efficiency" actually is depends on who you talk to, however. Someone who is philosophically opposed to Medicare will consider it "wasteful" regardless of how low the expense ratio is.
Except I keep getting told that Medicare is suppose to be an insurance-like trust fund that was fully funded until 2040 or something.
In reality a forced tax that is now being raided to fund medical care for others beyond the scope of the Medicare program.
Basically you taxed this working person in return for some promised benefit, now you're using that money elsewhere. Since you already took my money without my consent, I'd be pissed too.
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
I'd agree with that assertion, but...
Here is an example of a couple voters who want to vote for a candidate who wants to do away with their government money at the same time he panders to them. Maybe they're ok with it, they don't need it, but maybe they do and they're too naive to know his intentions.
Its funny, one point I'd agree with Romney would be on farm subsidies. I'm from Iowa - Farmers are absolutely flush with cash right now - $400-500k+ shops are popping up left on right on farms, everyone has new equipment, they're building and buying homes on my lake by the masses - these guys don't need subsidies. The dairy industry has always been a falsely propped up industry and is a different bag, but farmers in general no longer need the money we're giving them.
Call me crazy, but around here its not rare to see a farmer in a brand new Ford Platinum pulling a new Crownline or Cobalt to the lake... If they've got 60 grand for a truck and another 80-100 for a boat I don't see them as eligible for government funds.
Agree 100%. Only dumbasses would continue supporting a failed two-party system filled with failures of candidates who couldn't care less about the country nor its populace.
Since when are multi-millionaire shitbags like Romney, et al, FROM BOTH PARTIES in any way shape or form representative of the bulk of American people?
They're not. But "we" keep supporting and electing them. Therefore "we" are fucking dumbasses for perpetuating a failed system.
Post edited by Neechoo Cheeska at 6/25/2012 2:11:22 AM
Mitt Romney Visits Subsidized Farms, Knocks Big Government Spending
In front of federally subsidized cows, Romney reiterated his opposition to big-government spending. Wayne Barrett speaks to the cows’ owners, who say they dislike Obama even while they take government money.
The government needs to keep their hands off my Medicare/Social Security!!!!
Absolutely no argument there. The government is so intertwined with peoples lives today that they can no longer distinguish where their collectivism begins and their individualism used to end.
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
No real argument there (or with the rest of your post I omitted).......except it does mean that 100% of ALL spending is therefore good and justified (at least to someone out there).
There exists the primary problem. 1.5 Trillion in discretionary spending, FY2011 alone, and someone out there benefiting from each and every single dollar of it (and crying for more and more next year).
About sums it up.......
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor I think that "wasteful" spending can still be "useful" but the funds would have to be "efficiently" spent. What "efficiency" actually is depends on who you talk to, however. Someone who is philosophically opposed to Medicare will consider it "wasteful" regardless of how low the expense ratio is.
I think the argument is in the wording of their action.
If government was "efficient" we wouldn't ever need a private sector. We often admit that the purpouse of public jobs and public programs is to do work that private sectors wouldn't typically do (ie. not profitable).
When you undertake work that produces negative wealth, or runs up labor/production costs beyond their relative rates of return, year after year, it is safe to say that any concept of "efficiency" just went right out the fucking window.
Spending $2 to make a $1 is what they do best........because it is all they do.....or else someone else in the private sector would already be doing their work for them.
With that said in ROI, ROR, Efficiency, standards.......everything our government does is inherently, by this mere definition, wasteful spending.
We have just learned to accept these negative rates of return on some "waste" .......especially when it allegedly educates our children (or at the very least babysits them), paves a road (no matter how decrepit)....etc....etc
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
I'd agree with that assertion, but...
Here is an example of a couple voters who want to vote for a candidate who wants to do away with their government money at the same time he panders to them. Maybe they're ok with it, they don't need it, but maybe they do and they're too naive to know his intentions.
Its funny, one point I'd agree with Romney would be on farm subsidies. I'm from Iowa - Farmers are absolutely flush with cash right now - $400-500k+ shops are popping up left on right on farms, everyone has new equipment, they're building and buying homes on my lake by the masses - these guys don't need subsidies. The dairy industry has always been a falsely propped up industry and is a different bag, but farmers in general no longer need the money we're giving them.
Call me crazy, but around here its not rare to see a farmer in a brand new Ford Platinum pulling a new Crownline or Cobalt to the lake... If they've got 60 grand for a truck and another 80-100 for a boat I don't see them as eligible for government funds.
Many of these farms are going for bank right now. Millions and millions of dollars for pretty meager farms these days.
I personally agree with you. The time for subsidizing them, along with most other things, is long in the past (assuming there was ever a good time for it).
Anyway, gvt subsidies skew the markets and also become the final arbiter of picking winners and losers -something they should never be doing.
A smart man once long ago recognized what will happen when the public figures out it can vote itself the public treasury. If the younger generations dont get a hold of this entitlement mentality, they are doomed.
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical _______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
Exactly. What the fuck are you talking about _______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
Exactly. What the fuck are you talking about
Government spending comes through taxes. Taxes are theft. How can government spending be a good thing when it can only be accomplished by stealing from people?
_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
Exactly. What the fuck are you talking about
Government spending comes through taxes. Taxes are theft. How can government spending be a good thing when it can only be accomplished by stealing from people?
That's retarded. Taxes are not theft. I don't agree with high taxes but for society to function, you need tax revenues. Their is a middle ground with govt and you Paultards simply are too stupid to understand that. Much like PETA members, Paultards are so outa touch with reality it's scary! _______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
Exactly. What the fuck are you talking about
Government spending comes through taxes. Taxes are theft. How can government spending be a good thing when it can only be accomplished by stealing from people?
That's retarded. Taxes are not theft. I don't agree with high taxes but for society to function, you need tax revenues. Their is a middle ground with govt and you Paultards simply are too stupid to understand that. Much like PETA members, Paultards are so outa touch with reality it's scary!
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent?
_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
Exactly. What the fuck are you talking about
Government spending comes through taxes. Taxes are theft. How can government spending be a good thing when it can only be accomplished by stealing from people?
That's retarded. Taxes are not theft. I don't agree with high taxes but for society to function, you need tax revenues. Their is a middle ground with govt and you Paultards simply are too stupid to understand that. Much like PETA members, Paultards are so outa touch with reality it's scary!
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent?
Kinda like our soldiers are murdering people now in wars? <---what some Paultard said to me .. taxes are not going away. They are not theft since the things you use in society are supported by them. If you feel it's theft then move to another country. They should be lower then they currently are. Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 6/25/2012 10:50:02 AM
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
What?
Exactly. What the fuck are you talking about
Government spending comes through taxes. Taxes are theft. How can government spending be a good thing when it can only be accomplished by stealing from people?
That's retarded. Taxes are not theft. I don't agree with high taxes but for society to function, you need tax revenues. Their is a middle ground with govt and you Paultards simply are too stupid to understand that. Much like PETA members, Paultards are so outa touch with reality it's scary!
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent?
Kinda like our soldiers are murdering people now in wars? <---what some Paultard said to me .. taxes are not going away. They are not theft since the things you use in society are supported by them. If you feel it's theft then move to another country. They should be lower then they currently are.
Because the roads are built using money that was stolen from me yet I choose to use them does not change the fact that the money was stolen.
But, this is the type of argument that I expect from a leftist progressive like you, Snake.
Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 6/25/2012 10:57:07 AM
_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor Just because someone benefits from government money it is not necessarily a contradiction to oppose "excessive" government spending. They support the spending they get because they see it as legitimate spending. The spending affects their lives in a positive way and therefore it is good spending.
This is not logical. How can the spending be good spending if it is derived from theft that has a negative effect on people's lives?
If I steal your car and give it to my next door neighbor, is the benefit of his ownership of a car of greater value than your loss of property? Would you call that situation a good theft?
Theft? That is not logical
Theft: The action or crime of stealing: "he was convicted of theft"; "the latest theft happened at a garage".
Stealing: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".
Involuntary taxation is often equated to theft. Just as all other seizure of your private property that you did not consensually agree to the terms of.
Whether I steal your car, your wallet, some people also feel that having nearly 50cents of every dollar they earn (after all forms of taxation and tariffs have been applied), without their individual prior consent, is essentially theft.
Just because some people have voted it legal, by mobocracy, or through continually voting themselves into another persons pocket book, does not necessarily make the act universally legitimate (or accepted by all). No more so than eminent domain, or any other mobesque thuggery or viking pillaging tactic of taking what you want from others.. Post edited by Mockery at 6/25/2012 12:41:07 PM
<---what some Paultard said to me .. taxes are not going away. They are not theft since the things you use in society are supported by them. If you feel it's theft then move to another country. They should be lower then they currently are.
