Republican Debates

[Socrates]

On 5/8/2016, 7:38:14, Peace said:

OK. This is good to know. I honestly thought that you would answer the other way. If you had clarified this point in response to my initial inquiry, much of the discussion could have been avoided.

I do not have any particular faith in the ability of politicians to spend money wisely. I beleive that accusation is a bit unfounded. I would, for example, rather see a guaranteed minimum income system be put into place than to continue to support certain welfare programs that restricts the decision making of the recipients (e.g. food stamps).

But your response is interesting nevertheless. I do not think that your problem is that the government is spending your money per se, or that the government is allocating resources less efficiently than they would be allocated in a free-market economy. 

. . . 

I thought I clarified my position long ago in another thread.

I don't have the time or interest to keep repeating this entire debate ad nauseum, but I'll just summarize by saying (again) that I support the principle of subsidiarity (look it up), and don't belief in general that we should give centralized federal government power beyond what is necessary.  I'm not totally convinced that a top-down federal gun-to-the-head approach is in fact necessary to get the rich (and others) to help feed the poor and starving.

And for the record, I think "corporate welfare" - government subsidizing favored corporations at the expense of others- needs to go long before food stamps.

 

On 5/8/2016, 7:38:14, Peace said:

Well then. Considering that is not the case, I will take that as a license to continue casting away.

 

I could have sworn I read in a post of yours somewhere that you twice voted for Obama.  But maybe I was hallucinating (proving that phatmass has, in fact, made me crazy).  If that's the case, and I'm mistaken regarding that, then I must take a lot of what I posted back.  Though your "politics trump faith" comments are still pretty asinine - though I've discussed that enough already.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I thought I clarified my position long ago in another thread.

I don't have the time or interest to keep repeating this entire debate ad nauseum, but I'll just summarize by saying (again) that I support the principle of subsidiarity (look it up), and don't belief in general that we should give centralized federal government power beyond what is necessary.  I'm not totally convinced that a top-down federal gun-to-the-head approach is in fact necessary to get the rich (and others) to help feed the poor and starving.

And for the record, I think "corporate welfare" - government subsidizing favored corporations at the expense of others- needs to go long before food stamps.

 

I could have sworn I read in a post of yours somewhere that you twice voted for Obama.  But maybe I was hallucinating (proving that phatmass has, in fact, made me crazy).  If that's the case, and I'm mistaken regarding that, then I must take a lot of what I posted back.  Though your "politics trump faith" comments are still pretty asinine - though I've discussed that enough already.

OK. I will stop trying to give you a hard time about it. My bad.