Meet The Press with Bush. Stupefying.

[Apos]

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_02_08_archive.html#107636183023675423

See also “MORE ON SPENDING” over at http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Seems like he’s trying to mislead his own allies here.

[Apos]

The Daily Howler will be worth checking out on this score as well, since I’m sure they’ll devote a whole week to this.

Particularly their characterization of the rather sizable gap between the subject of the questions and the answers Bush gave.

Bush was asked why he dragged his feet on setting up a probe. His answer? Terrorists are people who hide in caves. Bush’s languorous “answer,” by the way, lasted a minute and 32 seconds. That was 92 seconds the slow-talking guest had managed to take off the clock.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020904.shtml

[annaplurabelle]

How can any fiscal conservative here make a case for his re-election???

Here’s more Andrew Sullivan, in The New Republic:

Bush offered no compelling rationale for reelecting him. He offered excuses on the economy; and, on the critical matter of the country’s fiscal health, he seemed scarily out of touch. Here’s the most worrying section of the interview, with some of my comments:

BUSH: Now, I don’t know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that, if Congress is wise with the people’s money, we can cut the deficit in half. And, at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will be relatively low.

But the point is that, in the last three years, the Congress has, by any measure, been grotesquely unwise with the people’s money. And the president vetoed not a single spending measure.

In fact, his own budgets exploded spending on both war and homeland security and every other government department…Then the president simply reiterates, and doesn’t explain, something no one believes, which is that the deficit can be cut in half in five years… If your financial adviser came up with such an answer, after a huge drop in your personal savings and massive loans coming due in a few years, you’d fire him.

BUSH: I believe Medicare is going to not only make the system work better for seniors, but it’s going to help the fiscal situation of our long-term projection.

OK, let me put this gently here. Is he out of his mind? … the major impact of his Medicare reform is literally trillions of dollars in new spending for the foreseeable future.

BUSH: We are dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill, it’s going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate’s is about $370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that, but over $300 billion. And, as you know, the budget I propose is about $256 billion. So…

It would appear from this response that the president believes that highway construction is an entitlement program. Again: Does he have the faintest idea what he’s talking about?

We have a few options here: The president doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying, or he trusts people telling him lies.

… if this is the level of coherence, grasp of reality, and honesty that is really at work in his understanding of domestic fiscal policy, then we are in even worse trouble than we thought. We have a captain on the fiscal Titanic who thinks he’s in the Caribbean.

[Apos]

How can any fiscal conservative here make a case for his re-election???

Er, for the same reason a person who wants the government to spend trillions more on education can vote for a democrat: the dems may not ever do this either, but they are at least closer to the mark than the republicans are. Bush is a complete failure in the realm of cutting the size and power of government. But that doesn’t mean that a democrat would be better (though, it does seem that Clinton’s record WAS better, and he managed to do it during a time of much higher revenue (i.e. temptation)).

[annaplurabelle]

Apos:

Understood and agreed.

I was referring to Bricker’s tax cut rationale back on page 1. It seems to have digressed into a debate about the merits of fiscal conservatism in general (which is reasonable,IMO), but none of that applies to this administration (except for the tax cuts). Using the tax cuts as a rationale without considering the whole picture seems short-sighted, at best.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

I don’t follow this at all. Wealthy people use more services that are paid for by taxation then the less wealthy? Can you give me some examples?

I believe it was Adam Smith who pointed out in The Wealth of Nations that to the extent the government enforced punishment for property crimes, it was protecting the rich against the poor. This is the classic example: folks with wealth receive more protection from police than the poor do.

Look also at funding for schools, at apportionment of road repair by rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods, at libraries in rich areas vs. poor areas, etc.

To a large extent this is due to different property tax bases in different areas. However, that doesn’t cover the entire disparity; nor does it prevent these examples from answering your question directly.

Unquestionably poor people use some government services more than rich people: AFDC doesn’t go to very many high-income families, for example. I’m not sure how you’d analyze the total benefit of government resources by income level. How, for example, do you apportion the benefit of police protection against property theft?

Daniel

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I believe it was Adam Smith who pointed out in The Wealth of Nations that to the extent the government enforced punishment for property crimes, it was protecting the rich against the poor. This is the classic example: folks with wealth receive more protection from police than the poor do.

Look also at funding for schools, at apportionment of road repair by rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods, at libraries in rich areas vs. poor areas, etc.

To a large extent this is due to different property tax bases in different areas. However, that doesn’t cover the entire disparity; nor does it prevent these examples from answering your question directly.

There is a difference between the value to the individual and the value expended. Unquestioably a glass of water to a man staggering through the desert is of greater value than a glass of water to a man at the shores of Lake Superior. But the cost of the water is roughly the same. The polcie don’t spend appreciably more resources protecting the rich, even if their possessions are more valuable.

And I would argue that the school funding, roads, and libraries are covered by the difference in property tax base in the various areas.

Unquestionably poor people use some government services more than rich people: AFDC doesn’t go to very many high-income families, for example. I’m not sure how you’d analyze the total benefit of government resources by income level. How, for example, do you apportion the benefit of police protection against property theft?

As I did above: by pointing out that police expend equal resources in protecting a poor man’s possessions as a rich one’s. The mere fact that the latter is more valuable does not mean the rich person is consuming more government resources. Indeed, since high-crime areas are more likely to correlate with low-income areas, it seems intuitively obvious to me that the poor person consumes a greater share of police resources than his wealthier counterpart.

• Rick

[pravnik]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I believe it was Adam Smith who pointed out in The Wealth of Nations that to the extent the government enforced punishment for property crimes, it was protecting the rich against the poor. This is the classic example: folks with wealth receive more protection from police than the poor do.

I’m not sure how you’d analyze the total benefit of government resources by income level. How, for example, do you apportion the benefit of police protection against property theft?

Much as I hate todefend a republican (and a lawyer to boot!), here’s some stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Division:

Annual household income

Some differences were found between household income levels as to whether persons were more or less vulnerable to violent crimes in 2002.

In 2002–

*Persons in households with an annual income under $75,000 were robbed at a significantly higher rate than persons in households earning more.

*Persons whose household had an annual income under $50,000 were more likely than person in higher income households to experience rape/sexual assault.
And this-

No relationship between annual household income and the rate of total property crime emerged in 2002.

In 2002–

Households with incomes below $75,000 were less likely to experience a motor vehicle theft.

Households with annual incomes below $75,000 were burglarized at rates higher than that for households with higher incomes.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Fair points, both of you. I wish I could find the exact Adam Smith quote, just to demonstrate that this isn’t a wacky Marxist idea :).

Bricker, I wasn’t suggesting that rich people appreciate cop protection more, that they considered it more valuable; rather, I was suggesting that cops provide more services to rich people, as follows:

They may patrol rich neighborhoods more thoroughly, respond to complaints more promptly, and investigate crimes more completely than they do in poor neighborhoods. I don’t have stats on this, and I could be wrong; however, the poor response times in poor neighborhoods are legendary, and I do believe cops will investigate the theft of a $10,000 piece of jewelry more thoroughly than they’ll investigate the theft of a $100 stereo.

It’s a fair point that more crimes are committed in poor neighborhoods. For that to be conclusive, we’d need to see that the police spend equal resources investigating and preventing crimes in poor neighborhoods as in rich neighborhoods; as I suggested above, I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption.

Another point: to the extent that foreign military ventures protect American economic interests, I’d submit that it’s the wealthy whose economic interests are most protected.

Daniel

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Fair points, both of you. I wish I could find the exact Adam Smith quote, just to demonstrate that this isn’t a wacky Marxist idea :).

Bricker, I wasn’t suggesting that rich people appreciate cop protection more, that they considered it more valuable; rather, I was suggesting that cops provide more services to rich people, as follows:

They may patrol rich neighborhoods more thoroughly, respond to complaints more promptly, and investigate crimes more completely than they do in poor neighborhoods. I don’t have stats on this, and I could be wrong; however, the poor response times in poor neighborhoods are legendary, and I do believe cops will investigate the theft of a $10,000 piece of jewelry more thoroughly than they’ll investigate the theft of a $100 stereo.

It’s a fair point that more crimes are committed in poor neighborhoods. For that to be conclusive, we’d need to see that the police spend equal resources investigating and preventing crimes in poor neighborhoods as in rich neighborhoods; as I suggested above, I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption.

Given pravnik’s links and data, and given the fact that it’s you who are suggesting an overall disparity (I’m merely saying that it’s equal) - the burden is on you to offer some evidence – more evidence than your supposition.

Another point: to the extent that foreign military ventures protect American economic interests, I’d submit that it’s the wealthy whose economic interests are most protected.

To what extent DO foreign military ventures protect American economic interests? If you’ll illustrate this line of thinking, I believe I can show that poor people’s interests are being protected as well. But give me something concrete to work with.

• Rick

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Actually, for the time being, I retract the police claims. The best cite I’m able to come up with – Poor Areas Wait Longer for Hard-Pressed D.C. Police – points out that the disparity in response times for property crimes is actually due to the larger numbers of violent crimes in poor communities, which occupy officers’ time.

As for foreign policy – hm. Pretend I hadn’t said that for now, wouldja? Gimme a chance to formulate a more coherent argument on it.

These are obviously not issues I’ve got a great deal of information on; I’d intended to suggest avenues for exploration, not put forth a compelling argument, and I’m afraid I can’t really do the latter right now.

Daniel

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

On the topic of the Meet the Press speech, Slate has a story about another lie Bush told, to wit:

If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

. Slate

That isn’t even close to being true. Under Bush, overall discretionary spending (i.e., with defense spending included) has increased every single year. It’s now 31 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
But perhaps Bush meant to say, “domestic discretionary spending.” Well, that, too, has increased every single year of Bush’s presidency, and, as previously noted, is now 25 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
It seems almost gratuitous to add that in the last year of President Clinton’s term, discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 3 percent, and that domestic discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 5 percent.

When I said he was a lying sack of shit, I was wrong about the sack part.

Bricker, I noticed that I missed a post of yours. Let me respond…

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Bush has cut military pay? I did not know that. Cite?

Apparently you missed the roughly dozen cites linked to in my first post. But as to pay specifically, try this:

http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php

Yes. The homeless education program. This would seem to fall precisely into the category of “Make Me Pay For Your Family As Well As My Own.” I agree with those cuts. Frankly, I suspect a large portion of the electorate also agrees with those cuts.

Well, you addressed one third of the things I brought up, but I am no match for your pure greed. Isn’t that a deadly sin? Did you know that the Children’s Defense Fund had a plan entitled Leave No Child Behind? Bush can’t even come up with a title on his own. Of course, I know he was intentionally coopting the message so as to minimize its power.

What has this to do with “social responsibility” and fiscal policy? Have we moved into a general indictment of the administration?

Does “social responsibility” mean only “screw the poor” to you, or does it mean being responsible to society? Part of society is taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but it also means being responsible for the protection and defense of our society, doesn’t it?

Specifics? [as to my statement regarding anti-terrrorism funding reductions by Bush]

James Carville, in Had Enough? has a nice compilation. Here’s a sampling, from pages 41-43:
12/4/01: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 for a bill that includes $13 billion for homeland security programs. The next day Bush threatens to veto it. […] 7/19/02: cuts in funding for food safety, cyber security, efforts to allow police and fire radios to work together, and nuclear, airport and water security. […] 2/3/2003: Bush’s 2004 budget reduces funding for homeland security by 1.9%. […] June 2003: Republicans reject a Democratic amendment to add $1 billion for homeland defense, paid for by cutting a tax break for millionaires from $88,000 each to $83,000 each.

Says you. I am perfectly happy with this change. I believe the Clean Water Act was far too broad, and the current changes strike a more acceptable balance between the needs of industry and the need to protect natural resources.

Then you must be pleased with the “balance” of former industry lobbyists who are now in charge of the very natural resources their respective industries consume or pollute. You must be pleased with White House interference and scrubbing of EPA reports. (Aside: Why does anyone have any doubt that Bush would pressure intelligence people when it is readily apparent that he used the same tactics in other areas, such as the environment, including lying about the safety of the area around Ground Zero?)

I agree with this analysis - I just don’t agree that Bush was ever behind such a thing. Cite?

Ample references to McCain’s charges of push polling by Bush can be found by Googling. I read about the specific charge (i.e. the illegitimate child push poll) in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

You lost me admidst the triple negative. What is this about?

You don’t remember Bush saying “I said I would run deficits in the case of a recession, a war or a national emergency. I never thought I’d hit the trifecta.”? Well, turns out he was lying about ever saying any such thing.

Ah, back we go to “taking care of Americans.” Funny how it’s coming out of my paycheck. Get your grubby hands out of my paycheck, you thief. I say the principles upon which America is founded include self-reliance, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, making yourself a success - not depending on the dole. There was a time when the pauper’s oath was a condition of public charity, and I don’t think that was altogether terrible. We are a great society because we built ourselves up on those foundations, not on the shaky ground of public assistance.

Gee, I thought it was “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity…”

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

check that, secure the blessings of liberty…

[Bricker]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Originally Posted by Bricker
Apparently you missed the roughly dozen cites linked to in my first post. But as to pay specifically, try this:

http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php

OK - I agree that Bush has proposed cutting imminent-danger pay and family-separation allowance. This is not a base pay cut, but I agree it falls into the rubric of ‘pay’. He has NOT proposed cutting base pay – at worst, he has proposed limiting the increase in base pay, which is not the same thing as a cut.

Well, you addressed one third of the things I brought up, but I am no match for your pure greed. Isn’t that a deadly sin?

If it is, what of it? Unless you’re suggesting that we apply Christian principles in deciding proper government policy.

Did you know that the Children’s Defense Fund had a plan entitled Leave No Child Behind? Bush can’t even come up with a title on his own. Of course, I know he was intentionally coopting the message so as to minimize its power.

Relevance?

Does “social responsibility” mean only “screw the poor” to you, or does it mean being responsible to society? Part of society is taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but it also means being responsible for the protection and defense of our society, doesn’t it?

Yes, it does. But taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves should be done in such a way as to not provide a motive for such people to remain ever sucking on the government teat. As a general principle, I agree we should “take care” of those that need it; as to specifics, I suspect we disagree.

James Carville, in Had Enough? has a nice compilation. Here’s a sampling, from pages 41-43:
12/4/01: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 for a bill that includes $13 billion for homeland security programs. The next day Bush threatens to veto it.

What else was in the bill?

[…] 7/19/02: cuts in funding for food safety, cyber security, efforts to allow police and fire radios to work together, and nuclear, airport and water security. […] 2/3/2003: Bush’s 2004 budget reduces funding for homeland security by 1.9%. […] June 2003: Republicans reject a Democratic amendment to add $1 billion for homeland defense, paid for by cutting a tax break for millionaires from $88,000 each to $83,000 each.

And why should millionaires be hit with an extra $5,000 per year? Why not everyone in the country bearing an equal share of the burden? Why should the rich pay all?

Then you must be pleased with the “balance” of former industry lobbyists who are now in charge of the very natural resources their respective industries consume or pollute.

Yes, I am.

You must be pleased with White House interference and scrubbing of EPA reports. (Aside: Why does anyone have any doubt that Bush would pressure intelligence people when it is readily apparent that he used the same tactics in other areas, such as the environment, including lying about the safety of the area around Ground Zero?)

Cite?

Ample references to McCain’s charges of push polling by Bush can be found by Googling. I read about the specific charge (i.e. the illegitimate child push poll) in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

I don’t doubt that the book contains something, but as it’s not on-line and I’m unable to review the sources, I’m afraid I’m unconvinced. I seem to recall someone else saying the book had footnotes – perhaps the specific sources Mr. Franken relied upon can be shared here, so that I may evaluate them myself, rather than surrendering my judgement and placing my trust solely in Mr. Franken’s expert and unbiased analysis?

You don’t remember Bush saying “I said I would run deficits in the case of a recession, a war or a national emergency. I never thought I’d hit the trifecta.”? Well, turns out he was lying about ever saying any such thing.

Cite?

Gee, I thought it was “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity…”

Do you believe that the preamble has any sort of legal effect or authority?

• Rick

[hipdadiddy]

Bricker, doesn’t it strike you as the least bit ironic that you, who escaped a banana republic to “make it” in America, are now supporting a President whose policies are turning America into the biggest banana republic of them all?

Want cites for that? Go ahead, ask me, I dare ya – but be warned, I’ve got Paul Krugman’s “The Great Unravelling” here at hand…

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker
OK - I agree that Bush has proposed cutting imminent-danger pay and family-separation allowance. This is not a base pay cut, but I agree it falls into the rubric of ‘pay’. He has NOT proposed cutting base pay – at worst, he has proposed limiting the increase in base pay, which is not the same thing as a cut.

Um… your tunnel vision regarding the linked information is quite impressive. For one with a fetish about his own tax, you cannot see your way around to giving tax relief to those in the military, and blithely dismiss a cap on increases for some military personnel? Do you begrudge giving a $12K “gratuity” to the families of those killed in active duty? Damn, for the cost of your personal tax cut, that is some stone cold shit.

If it is, what of it? Unless you’re suggesting that we apply Christian principles in deciding proper government policy.

No, actually I don’t. But to the extent that they correspond to other systems of morality and to the founding principles of our country, as well as to our country’s greatest strengths, I find them to have merit.

Relevance?

The relevance of the observation regarding his theft of the Leave No Child Behind is twofold: 1) It shows how callous and duplicitous he is in stealing the message, hollowing it out, and putting it forth as an “effort” to address the problem, and 2) He doesn’t mind violating trademark laws (although in terms of pure legality, I cannot tell you at this point whether they had registered the mark).

Yes, it does. But taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves should be done in such a way as to not provide a motive for such people to remain ever sucking on the government teat.

Defense and security is sucking on the government teat?? How are you defending yourself against another al Queda attack, or how will you care for yourself in the aftermath of another attack? Oh, you are relying on others to do that for you? Quit sucking on the teat of the government, pal. (Or perhaps you are posting from your fortified bunker.)

As a general principle, I agree we should “take care” of those that need it; as to specifics, I suspect we disagree.

I’m quite sure we disagree, since I find the concepts behind such bald self-interest as yours completely repugnant.

What else was in the bill?

Good question. Perhaps we can find out what were in all the other bills on homeland security that Bush doesn’t like. Perhaps we can find out why he thinks we should be spending less on homeland security than we were, and why first responders shouldn’t be provided all the resources they need. (Yes, I’m sure you haven’t heard about this one either: MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos)

And why should millionaires be hit with an extra $5,000 per year? Why not everyone in the country bearing an equal share of the burden? Why should the rich pay all?

Are the rich paying all? Apart from the hyperbole, yes, those who can, should. How great will the hardship that they will suffer from having $5,000 less be? If you can think only in dollar figures, and are as conservative as you sound, consider it an investment in minimizing the size of the blow to the economy from the next terrorist attack.

Quote:

I said: Then you must be pleased with the “balance” of former industry lobbyists who are now in charge of the very natural resources their respective industries consume or pollute.

Bricker replied: Yes, I am.

Wow.

From me: You must be pleased with White House interference and scrubbing of EPA reports. (Aside: Why does anyone have any doubt that Bush would pressure intelligence people when it is readily apparent that he used the same tactics in other areas, such as the environment, including lying about the safety of the area around Ground Zero?)

Bricker asks: Cite?

Breaking News, World News, US and Local News - NY Daily News - New York Daily...

For nearly two years, officials at the federal Environmental Protection Agency have denied that they failed to properly inform New Yorkers of the dangers of toxic releases from the collapse of the World Trade Center.
But last week, an investigation released by the EPA’s own inspector general made a stunning revelation: The trail of public health misinformation began inside the White House.
The news that White House staff ordered the EPA to minimize potential health dangers near Ground Zero was bad enough. But the details in the 165-page report about how the EPA lied to the public - and even subverted its own safety standards in the process - are chilling.

Also, re: scrubbing EPA reports (the only thing they do want clean:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_global_warming.htm

Politics, not the complexities of science, led to the deletion of the section on global warming. The New York Times reported that when an earlier draft of the report containing a section on global warming was sent to the White House, the President’s advisors demanded major revisions. [13] Specifically, the White House opposed mention of research demonstrating sharp increases in global temperature over the past decade compared to the previous millennium. The White House even objected to the reference to a National Academy of Sciences report on the human contribution to global warming that the White House itself had requested and that had been endorsed by President Bush in speeches that year.[14] Administration officials replaced these sections with a reference to a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute questioning climate change evidence.[15]

I don’t doubt that the book contains something, but as it’s not on-line and I’m unable to review the sources, I’m afraid I’m unconvinced. I seem to recall someone else saying the book had footnotes – perhaps the specific sources Mr. Franken relied upon can be shared here, so that I may evaluate them myself, rather than surrendering my judgement and placing my trust solely in Mr. Franken’s expert and unbiased analysis?

Fair enough. Regarding Bush’s push polling:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/10/campaign.wrap/

The tone of the gathering changed after a woman in the audience told McCain that her 13-year-old son was told that the Arizona senator is a “liar and a cheat,” during a telephone “push poll” conducted the night before.

http://slate.msn.com/id/74943/

John McCain says supporters of George W. Bush have been “push polling” in South Carolina—calling voters on the phone and asking loaded questions designed to smear McCain. The Bush camp admits that it is asking tough questions but argues that they’re part of a real poll, not a “push poll.” This controversy, which has consumed the media for the past week, misses the point. Every campaign poll that asks about an opponent’s flaws is a push poll. Its purpose is to figure out how to push voters away from the opponent—if not through the telephone, then through the television.[…]
This distinction is a sham, and the Bush survey illustrates why. Like other “real polls” designed by “political professionals,” its purpose is not just to measure public opinion but to alter it, by figuring out how to “deliver a message” full of “negative distorted information” that will push voters away from McCain. Political pros aren’t paid “to figure out what people are thinking.” They’re paid to figure out how to make people think what the campaign wants them to think. They’re paid to tell the candidate what he can say that will persuade you to vote for him, or at least not to vote for his opponent. They’re paid to gather information about you the way a hawk gathers information about a rabbit.

The only reference that Franken makes for his material (i.e. the illegitimate child attack) is McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis.

Quote:
You don’t remember Bush saying “I said I would run deficits in the case of a recession, a war or a national emergency. I never thought I’d hit the trifecta.”? Well, turns out he was lying about ever saying any such thing.

Cite? This apparently comes from The New Republic, which I cannot access, but here are a couple of discussions of this particular lie:

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/trifecta_jun02.shtml

http://www.jeffcoop.com/blog/archives/001762.html

Do you believe that the preamble has any sort of legal effect or authority?

I believe it has a great deal of authority, but not specifically legal. However, since we weren’t talking about authority but about the principles our country was founded on, I am not sure of the relevance of your question. Do you feel that your “everybody but me should go fuck themselves” approach to our country has any sort of “legal effect or authority”?

[Live_Better_Electrically]

@Bricker

I don’t follow this at all. Wealthy people use more services that are paid for by taxation then the less wealthy? Can you give me some examples?

Corporate bailouts and subsidies.

@Bricker

But taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves should be done in such a way as to not provide a motive for such people to remain ever sucking on the government teat.

The GOP likes to characterize Dems as negative, but nothing beats the negativity of a worldview that paints poor people–the vast majority of whom would love nothing more than to be self-sufficient and forego the humiliation of public assistance–as lazy swindlers just looking for an opportunity to live forever off handouts. Similarly, on Meet the Press, Bush characterized an entire region of the world as a “dangerous” place of “dangerous people,” even after being proven wrong in his assumption that they MUST have WMDs because they’re so inherently violent and evil. His is a racist view. Bricker’s claim is a classist view. The working poor are some of the hardest-working yet disparaged people in our society, and terrorists are only a tiny part of the population in the middle east. Republicans have to keep telling themselves that the poor don’t work hard or don’t want to work, because anything else will upset their self-aggrandizing notion that we live in a meritocracy.

[SentientMeat]

One could argue that without welfare, such that one could literally die on the streets of something easily treatable such as malnutrition or an infected wound, the poor might very well consider that they had nothing to lose by commiting crimes against the rich. An expensive method of preventing Class War, admittedly, but one which undeniably provides a secondary benefit to the rich.

[olanv]

@SentientMeat

One could argue that without welfare, such that one could literally die on the streets of something easily treatable such as malnutrition or an infected wound, the poor might very well consider that they had nothing to lose by commiting crimes against the rich. An expensive method of preventing Class War, admittedly, but one which undeniably provides a secondary benefit to the rich.

Hence the saying, “It takes money to make money.” If you suddenly have all of the wealth on earth, it’s going to cost you most of it to be the wealthiest person on earth – to abate that tension line.