TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

So basically you want to be able to not have to compromise on issues of international interest, i.e. sites in your country that are important because they are part of human culture as a while. We come back to the same issue of paranoia and asymmetrical policies. MANY other countries have had to compromise and cede some of their sovereignty in order to benefit from many an international or bilateral treaty. This tends to be the case especially when the US is involved, i.e. bullying around other countries to get them to cede some of their sovereignty. Case in point, US military bases in other countries. The fact is, the US isn't the sole power wielder anymore. It has finally come to pass that the US has to negotiate not dictate, and you people are scared and disappointed. You want to go to the good ol' days when you could do whatever you wanted with your country but expected other to comply obediently to US interests.

Bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with the UNESCO program, except maybe inefficiencies and too much bureaucracy. Could the process be more inclusive? Sure. Should there maybe be certain changes done to it? Sure. Should the US pull because it might potentially (like the legislation states, it may only be indirectly in some particular cases ceding power) ceding some sovereignty? No. Fact is, this makes life easier for congress which can then focus on more important things like education and health care. A more useful legislation would propose more oversight over the process, and a more activate participation by community members, not withdrawal from the process. Also, I am assuming this legislation has that in mind, withdrawing from that UN process as you haven't referred to what the proposed solution is.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX So basically you want to be able to not have to compromise on issues of international interest, i.e. sites in your country that are important because they are part of human culture as a while. We come back to the same issue of paranoia and asymmetrical policies. MANY other countries have had to compromise and cede some of their sovereignty in order to benefit from many an international or bilateral treaty. This tends to be the case especially when the US is involved, i.e. bullying around other countries to get them to cede some of their sovereignty. Case in point, US military bases in other countries. The fact is, the US isn't the sole power wielder anymore. It has finally come to pass that the US has to negotiate not dictate, and you people are scared and disappointed. You want to go to the good ol' days when you could do whatever you wanted with your country but expected other to comply obediently to US interests. Bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with the UNESCO program, except maybe inefficiencies and too much bureaucracy. Could the process be more inclusive? Sure. Should there maybe be certain changes done to it? Sure. Should the US pull because it might potentially (like the legislation states, it may only be indirectly in some particular cases ceding power) ceding some sovereignty? No. Fact is, this makes life easier for congress which can then focus on more important things like education and health care. A more useful legislation would propose more oversight over the process, and a more activate participation by community members, not withdrawal from the process. Also, I am assuming this legislation has that in mind, withdrawing from that UN process as you haven't referred to what the proposed solution is.

You must not have been following but I'm a strong supporter of both Libertarianism and Congressman Ron Paul, a Presidential Candidate who doesn't believe in maintaining an American security apparatus all around the world. Policing oil and other such corporate interests is something which was never intended to be my government's responsibility. I'm hardly scared, nor am I disappointed that my country is no longer in a position to police the rest of the world. it's about time that we focused our efforts elsewhere.

I don't know where your head is, Mr. UNESCO spokesperson, but you obviously have your own agenda here and it definitely doesn't appear to have anything to do with my country's National Sovereignty.

My country can take care of itself just fine without the UN, without UNESCO and without a bunch of other greedy hands trying to take a piece of our pie. It's called self-reliance and we've been practicing it for quite some time now. Now if only we could wean ourselves off of fighting the banker's wars...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well, every single Labour Prime Minister is in the Fabian Society if that helps!?

I know Especially Tony Blair, who doesn't make it any kind of real secret

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4944100.stm

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You must not have been following but I'm a strong supporter of both Libertarianism and Congressman Ron Paul, a Presidential Candidate who doesn't believe in maintaining an American security apparatus all around the world. Policing oil and other such corporate interests is something which was never intended to be my government's responsibility. I'm hardly scared, nor am I disappointed that my country is no longer in a position to police the rest of the world. it's about time that we focused our efforts elsewhere, namely on helping all of the disadvantaged people who have fallen by the wayside. I don't know where your head, Mr. UNESCO spokesperson, but you obviously have your own agenda here and it definitely doesn't appear to have anything to do with my country's National Sovereignty. My country can take care of itself just fine without the UN, without UNESCO and without a bunch of other greedy hands trying to take a piece of our pie. It's called self-reliance and we've been practicing it for quite some time now. Now if only we could wean ourselves off of fighting the banker's wars...

Those eight cents could be better used elsewhere...

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld Those eight cents could be better used elsewhere...

I agree. That's the Fabian Socialist element which has come to pervade our society.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You must not have been following but I'm a strong supporter of both Libertarianism and Congressman Ron Paul, a Presidential Candidate who doesn't believe in maintaining an American security apparatus all around the world. Policing oil and other such corporate interests is something which was never intended to be my government's responsibility. I'm hardly scared, nor am I disappointed that my country is no longer in a position to police the rest of the world. it's about time that we focused our efforts elsewhere. I don't know where your head is, Mr. UNESCO spokesperson, but you obviously have your own agenda here and it definitely doesn't appear to have anything to do with my country's National Sovereignty. My country can take care of itself just fine without the UN, without UNESCO and without a bunch of other greedy hands trying to take a piece of our pie. It's called self-reliance and we've been practicing it for quite some time now. Now if only we could wean ourselves off of fighting the banker's wars...

I am always amused at how you would actually accuse me of being a UNESCO spokesperson (or any other thing I deem reasonable). And no, I am not specially concerned with your countries sovereignty, I am not a US citizen and have never cared to be one. And yes I am well aware of our support for isolationist policy (thats what it is in the end, you can try and spin it all you want). I posted my arguments to show that in the end there is no real meat to your arguments, just speculation. The only scenario where your argument would be reasonable is if there were some sort of conspiracy going on (which I know you believe). There isn't proof there is one, ergo your arguments carry no weight. From a practical political point of view Ron Paul's potential policies and the ones you advocate are not feasible, specially many of the tenants of libertarianism.

So there you go. I do follow. It does not mean I can not attack your particular arguments, because that is what I am doing. There is no practical reason, other than contrived abstract concepts such as the potential loss of sovereignty in very few situations that would really merit withdrawing from the UNESCO World Heritage program. You have not presented any arguments that sustain your hypothesis. Its as simple as that.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I am always amused at how you would actually accuse me of being a UNESCO spokesperson (or any other thing I deem reasonable). And no, I am not specially concerned with your countries sovereignty, I am not a US citizen and have never cared to be one. And yes I am well aware of our support for isolationist policy (thats what it is in the end, you can try and spin it all you want). I posted my arguments to show that in the end there is no real meat to your arguments, just speculation. The only scenario where your argument would be reasonable is if there were some sort of conspiracy going on (which I know you believe). There isn't proof there is one, ergo your arguments carry no weight. From a practical political point of view Ron Paul's potential policies and the ones you advocate are not feasible, specially many of the tenants of libertarianism. So there you go. I do follow. It does not mean I can not attack your particular arguments, because that is what I am doing. There is no practical reason, other than contrived abstract concepts such as the potential loss of sovereignty in very few situations that would really merit withdrawing from the UNESCO World Heritage program. You have not presented any arguments that sustain your hypothesis. Its as simple as that.

I think that you're deliberately trying to confuse non-interventionism with isolationism.

All I'm asking is for people to wake up and take some time to do some research. People obviously have the time to do all other sorts of needless things - everything except trying to actually understand the ways of our world.

Anyway, I'm not here to field every question from every angle. I'm simply presenting you with enough information in the hopeful attempt at piquing your curiosity in order to get you to dig for more. I'm sorry but I can't hold everyone's hand on everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think that you're deliberately trying to confuse non-interventionism with isolationism.

Go ahead and explain how Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to withdraw from treaties, rescind American influence abroad, and renege on bilateral trade agreements.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Go ahead and explain how Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to withdraw from treaties, rescind American influence abroad, and renege on bilateral trade agreements.

Get off of your ass and look it up!!! Stop waiting for me to tell you.

He's said it so many times himself that I'm sure you can find a few videos with him explaining it.

Here, from Wiki

quote:

Nonintervention or Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Isolationism is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism). Most non-interventionists are not isolationists. Most, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ron Paul in the United States, favor nonintervention combined with free trade and free cultural exchange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Go ahead and explain how Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to withdraw from treaties, rescind American influence abroad, and renege on bilateral trade agreements.

The isolationist label is wrong for 3 reasons.

1.) Isolationism involves economic isolation (tariffs, sanctions, regulations, etc.) Paul promotes free markets.

2.) Isolationism involves keeping ourselves out of diplomatic relations. Dr. Paul believes that we should maintain friendly relations with all nations that wish to form mutual friendships. Diplomatic isolationism is not part of his platform. The neocons have created diplomatic isolationism by lessening the number of friends and increasing the number of enemies.

3.) Critics of Paul seek to label him an isolationist in order to suggest that he does not want a strong military. WRONG. Paul believes in strong national defense. He just disagrees with the imperialist goals of those advocating nation-building and a permanent military presence overseas. We can stand strong without interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

Bottom line: Paul believes in free trade with all nations and a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is a HUGE difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Get off of your ass and look it up!!! Stop waiting for me to tell you. He's said it so many times himself that I'm sure you can find a few videos with him explaining it. Here, from Wiki

Great, here we go with the mythical "free trade without bilateral trade agreements" argument again. And here I thought we'd hashed this one out already, but apparently you didn't bother to read it the first time. Hold on, this is going to take a bit.

Seriously, stop reading wikipedia and starting reading something that is cross-referenced please.

Free trade is not the norm in the international system - autarky is. Free trade necessitates the lowering of tariffs in order to reach parity on both sides, where goods and services can flow between countries unimpeded. Under Ron Paul, this would never happen for several reasons.

First, his unwillingness to negotiate bilateral trade agreements (which is really what the GATT is) is telling - he wants to eliminate all prior agreements for trade liberalization and start from scratch. Ok. But how do we reach freer trade from autarky if we don't craft bilateral agreements with other countries, thereby giving up some of our precious national sovereignty? We can't. Autarky will not only be the state of nature, but it will also be the norm under Ron Paul. He may not profess to be a protectionist, but the international system will force his hand.

Second, bilateral trade negotiation privileges have in the past been given to the President to allow the Executive branch the authority to arrange bilateral arrangements with other countries. It should be mentioned that the provision has been allowed to sunset, and is not one that the Administration currently enjoys. However, taking a look at the method of these negotiations is illuminating. Namely, the United States Trade Representative, not the President, is the official trade liason abroad, and it is her office that has wide-ranging authority over trade agreements. As it should be - she is an economist and understands optimal tariff levels, etc. But it is the USTR that evaluates tariff levels in the United States and reaches out to other countries under the provisions of the GATT to negotiate trade liberalization. Congress simply couldn't handle that today, especially not since they seem to struggle getting so much else done. That is the main reason the President is sometimes granted that fast-track authority - Congress entrusts him to delegate the authority to make decisions to someone both knowledgable and capable of actually getting them done.

Third, going away from free trade would be tremendously bad for the economy. Economists are almost unanimous on the point that free trade is indeed good for countries. Not necessarily individuals, as some certainly are hurt (particularly labor forces in import-competing industries), but on the aggregate, more people are positively affected in greater ways than those fewer who are affected negatively.

Let me illustrate the following point to make this a bit more clear. If you take two countries, the United States, and say, Lira's Brazil, you can see why free trade is a superior strategy to autarky. Under free trade, let's say that both countries have an overall national welfare equal to 100 GDP. Both countries are relatively well off. However, if one country decides to implement a tariff in order to increase government revenue and protect it's domestic industries (protecting domestic industries is the main function of a tariff, and is something that Ron Paul has pledged to do), it's general welfare goes up, as the exporting industries of the other country are hurt and welfare there goes down. Macroeconomic theory demands that the tariff drive a wedge between the national welfare of the two countries - the increase in welfare of the tariff-implementing state is equal to the decline in welfare of the exporting state plus the government revenue the other state gains at it's expense. So in other words, if the US implements a tariff, the US economy stands to gain, but Brazil stands to lose at an even greater rate. So let's place the US welfare at 110 GDP and Brazil at 85 GDP.

So what will Brazil do? They will levy a retaliatory tariff, driving up their own national welfare at the expense of the welfare of the United States. Assuming both countries to be equal in exports for the sake of easy math, Brazil's welfare gains will be equal to the gains made by the US when it implemented a tariff of its own. But since Brazil initially lost greater than the US gained, Brazil will not be able to recapture that pre-tariff level. It will have lost 15, and gained 10, for a net loss of 5. Brazil's welfare stands at 95 GDP, below what it did at free trade levels. The United States similarly will not be better off. From its point at 110, the US will also lose more than Brazil has gained, and will fall 15 to 95 GDP.

So you can see that with tariffs both countries stand to lose... so why do they end up there?

John Nash (the Nobel-winner portrayed by Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind) came up with the theorem of Non-Cooperative Equilibrium in order to argue this point. His theorem suggested that countries act in their best interest based on the actions of their counterparts. So given that the US is in a state of free trade, Brazil's best course of action is to enact a tariff, driving it's own national welfare up to 110. And history has shown that this is what countries do. So under this assumption, what will the United States do? Given that Brazil has implemented a tariff, the United States will retaliate in kind, driving its GDP up from 85 to 95. Now both countries are losing.

So why don't they revert back to free trade? Because it's a classic prisoner's dillemma. Both are constrained by the actions of the other country. For the United States to revert back to free trade and remove their tariff, their overall welfare will decline once again back to 85. Hardly seems the politically-expedient thing to do. The same is true for Brazil - there is no incentive for liberalizing trade unilaterally, which is what Ron Paul pledges to do. And if the US does unilaterally liberalize, then Brazil stands to maximize its gains, so it will certainly NOT follow suit with liberalization.

That is where the GATT was born - the GATT is a global governance institution designed to facilitate the arrangement of BILATERAL trade negotiations between countries. The argument that the GATT or WTO takes away national sovereignty is silly and naive - there are no negotiations with the WTO itself, it is simply a conduit for negotiations between governments, and a monitoring organization to ensure that agreements between countries are not infringed in order to cheat the system - in other words, the Dispute Settlement Process under the WTO is in place in order to make sure that once free trade is established, Brazil doesn't secretly implement a tariff to maximize it's profit at the expense of the US. If Brazil continues to cheat, the WTO authorizes the United States to enact retribution measures with no fear of retaliation.

The GATT is simply the framework under which countries liberalize trade - because history has shown that without it, tariffs are levied willy-nilly and trade is greatly curtailed.

Which is why Ron Paul and free trade seem completely mutually exclusive to me.

Furthermore, from Foreign Policy:

quote:

Do people understand what Paul really stands for? Like every siren song, his policies are fraught with danger. Let's take a look: 1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America's Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. "Policy is policy," Paul wrote in 2006, "and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive." But there's almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul's thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence. 2. "Noninterventionism." This is the word Paul uses to describe his foreign policy, and he insists the term also encapsulates the vision of the Founders. While Paul claims "noninterventionism" is not isolationism, it sure sounds like it is. For instance, he even seeks to dismantle the Bretton Woods system of international cooperation born from the ashes of the Second World War (more on that below). Isolationism by any name, friends, is still isolationism. Sure, such sentiments were rampant in 18th and 19th century America and before WWII. The same sentiments are resurfacing today as a backlash against Iraq. Intelligent people can disagree about the Bush Doctrine's place in history. But let's not make up facts. [b]The post-9/11 period has been filled with literature by such historians as John Lewis Gaddis and Walter Russell Mead debunking the notion that the founders were only concerned with domestic security and never saw an ideological component to America's place in the world.[b]

John Lewis Gaddis, by the way, is probably the best international relations scholar in the post-WWII world.

quote:

3. Iraq. Let's assume Paul is right that foreign-policymaking powers are vested in the Congress. Why, then, does he keep promising that as president he will "immediately" pull U.S. troops out of Iraq? Presumably he intends to govern as he says the Founders intended. But there's a deep contradiction here. If as president he will have no authority to execute foreign policy except as Congress dictates, how can he promise on the campaign trail to get American troops out of Iraq? I don't get it. And let's focus for a second on the word "immediate." This is a cheap campaign trick. People in the know agree it will take between six and 14 months to get the troops and equipment out. Paul might seek to immediately begin getting the troops out. But don't be fooled. It's going to be a long and costly process. Or does Paul just intend to leave the equipment and bases behind for the Iraqis to use in the ensuing civil war? 4. "World governmental organizations." That's how Paul refers to the Bretton Woods institutions. He wants America out of the World Trade Organization, the North America Free Trade Agreement, and the United Nations, among others. Paul's official Web site warns visitors: "Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor's prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned." There is a fine line between Rudy's fear mongering over 9/11 and Ron's fear mongering over the United Nations, friends. Next comes talk of black helicopters. The U.N. has problems, sure, but does anyone serious really believe that the world would be better off without the United Nations? And, given that there's no indication other countries are about to close the doors on these institutions -- many of which the United States in fact founded -- isn't America better off having some influence within them? Paul says that, without clout inside the system of institutions which binds all other modern nations, America will be strong thanks to "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy." Sure, and we can all sit around the camp fire and sing Kumbaya with Kim Jong Il. 5. Iran. As recently as April 2006, Paul said, "Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working on one�only conjecture." I'm for unconditional, bilateral dialogue with Iran. I believe there's time to deal with Tehran in non-military terms. But you'd have to be a fool to believe Ahmadinejad when he says his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. In fact, I can't think of a single person in the foreign-policy community who thinks Iran's nuclear intentions are pure. Earth to Ron, come in Ron. Ron Paul's candidacy was fun. I get as much of a kick out of seeing the antiwar left rally behind a guy who has no problem with folks carrying concealed Uzis as the next guy. But play time is over. We're two months away from the first primaries. And Ron Paul's 15 minutes are up.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863


So yes, it appears that I have done my homework on Ron Paul, but I appreciate you accusing me of ignorance anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Furthermore, from Foreign Policy: John Lewis Gaddis, by the way, is probably the best international relations scholar in the post-WWII world. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863 So yes, it appears that I have done my homework on Ron Paul, but I appreciate you accusing me of ignorance anyway.

It's amazing to see how many "experts" they have in their corral.

Have you watched the G. Edgar Griffin video that I posted where he interviewed Norman Dodd?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's amazing to see how many "experts" they have in their corral. Have you watched the G. Edgar Griffin video that I posted where he interviewed Norman Dodd?

What broad brush strokes you use! John Lewis Gaddis is suddenly not reputable just because he doesn't support a conspiracy theory that you so fervently support??

Foreign Policy, fyi, is not the same as Foreign Affairs, the publication that is run by CFR. In fact, Foreign Affairs has every reason to be critical of CFR since they are competing publications... so again, how does this fit into your conspiracy theory puzzle?

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld Those eight cents could be better used elsewhere...

It says a lot of negative things about your personality and unhealthy world view that would point out those 8 cents and not the obvious 42 cents...

Good luck man...

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I agree. That's the Fabian Socialist element which has come to pervade our society.

Explain to me how NOT helping the poorest members of your society is EVER a good thing?

We're human beings for fucks sake, life comes before dollar bills.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What broad brush strokes you use! John Lewis Gaddis is suddenly not reputable just because he doesn't support a conspiracy theory that you so fervently support?? Foreign Policy, fyi, is not the same as Foreign Affairs, the publication that is run by CFR. In fact, Foreign Affairs has every reason to be critical of CFR since they are competing publications... so again, how does this fit into your conspiracy theory puzzle?

I never said that he's not reputable, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily trust him.

They're probably all related in one way or another.

Foreign Policy is funded by the Carnegie Endowment but I'm sure you're going to want to start to debate that issue now seeing as how the Carnegie Endowment, like many of the other politically maneuvered non-profits, does a lot of good (when looking at it's surface.)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I never said that he's not reputable, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily trust him. [QUOTE] Ok, that's fair, but before you make your judgment you should know that he is one of the most universally-respected political scientists in the field, and a staple in any academic program in the country. [QUOTE] Foreign Policy is funded by the Carnegie Endowment but I'm sure you're going to want to start to debate that issue now seeing as how the Carnegie Endowment, like many of the other politically maneuvered non-profits, does a lot of good (when looking at it's surface.)

Right, and Carnegie competes directly with CFR for prominent intellectuals and policy-makers, as well as influence within either party of the political establishment. So I don't see the basis for assuming they are in collusion with one another.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Explain to me how NOT helping the poorest members of your society is EVER a good thing? We're human beings for fucks sake, life comes before dollar bills.

I never said that not helping people is a good thing. I just don't think that people should be dependant upon the government for their outside needs because that particular dependency in itself would quickly begin to be fostered through an ever increasing amount of social programs.

And what ever happened to volunteer work? Doesn't anyone do that anymore or are they all so busy at their regular jobs (often times just in order to put food on their tables) that they don't have the time to help others on their own accord? I'm sure that's a part of it but I also think that people have just become extremely selfish.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Right, and Carnegie competes directly with CFR for prominent intellectuals and policy-makers, as well as influence within either party of the political establishment. So I don't see the basis for assuming they are in collusion with one another.

How about David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission? Where do you think they fit in, in your opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X How about the Trilateral Commission? Where do you think they fit in, in your opinion?

They are more dubious than CFR, I'll allow that. But they're over-hyped in my opinion. I see them as fairly toothless, and more symbolic than anything. If the world's most powerful and wealthy businessmen and politicians really wanted to create a system of global governance, they would have by now.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby It says a lot of negative things about your personality and unhealthy world view that would point out those 8 cents and not the obvious 42 cents... Good luck man...

The whole point should be that none of that spending is really necessary if the function of our government hadn't grown by such leaps and bounds to be what it is today.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov If the world's most powerful and wealthy businessmen and politicians really wanted to create a system of global governance, they would have by now.

Don't worry, they're still working on it. The need to finish molding public opinion first.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The whole point should be that none of that spending is really necessary if the function of our government hadn't grown by such leaps and bounds to be what it is today.

Well we have the situation as it is; what does this have to do with not wanting to help the less fortunate again?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Well we have the situation as it is; what does this have to do with not wanting to help the less fortunate again?

And the greatest part is that they created the situation in order to take advantage of it. They obviously knew full well what they were doing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about helping the less fortunate. It's just that in order to ensure that a man doesn't go hungry in the future you need to actually teach him how to fish as opposed to just giving him a few fish on the first day of each month. The latter is for the most part what our government does and that only creates a situation of adverse dependency.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.