[pachyderm]

Just another of my rambles -- you can dismiss it if you wish.

It occurs to me:

The Democratic party is the party of compassion -- the desire to help the less fortunate. The Republican party is the party of realism -- one that realizes we live in a real world, where resources are not infinite, and not everyone can have everything they want just because they want it. In both parties there are many who see their positions as the only valid ones. They do not admit any value in the other position. I see President Obama as the greatest example that I have seen in a long time, on the national scene, of a politician who has the confidence in himself that he can hold both ideas in his head at the same time, and try to balance them. He does not always succeed, as he is bombarded from all sides by those who can only see one thing. But he tries.

[OutofTune]

"The Republican party is the party of realism"

I almost spit out my coffee. Thanks for this. Funniest thing I've read all morning.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by OutofTune

"The Republican party is the party of realism"

I almost spit out my coffee. Thanks for this. Funniest thing I've read all morning.

Sorry; I was not trying to be funny. I think that is their fundamental idea, one that, actually, many of them have lost sight of, so in their confusion and fear they express themselves destructively. I was trying to see the basic truths on each side.

[OutofTune]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Sorry; I was not trying to be funny. I think that is their fundamental idea, one that, actually, many of them have lost sight of, so in their confusion and fear they express themselves destructively. I was trying to see the basic truths on each side.

My bad, immature to laugh. But seriously, party of realism? Pretending that racial minorities, sexual/gender minorities, and folks living in poverty don't exist is like living in a fairy tale. There is nothing realistic about a party giving all their attention to rich, white, hetero-normative, cisgendered men.

[Timgt5]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Just another of my rambles -- you can dismiss it if you wish.

It occurs to me:

The Democratic party is the party of compassion -- the desire to help the less fortunate. The Republican party is the party of realism -- one that realizes we live in a real world, where resources are not infinite, and not everyone can have everything they want just because they want it. In both parties there are many who see their positions as the only valid ones. They do not admit any value in the other position. I see President Obama as the greatest example that I have seen in a long time, on the national scene, of a politician who has the confidence in himself that he can hold both ideas in his head at the same time, and try to balance them. He does not always succeed, as he is bombarded from all sides by those who can only see one thing. But he tries.

I think that is a pretty good observation from a conventional point of view, but you are painting in Broad strokes. I disagree with you about our current President though. Having read his books, listened to his speeches, looked at the legislation I can only see a very dedicated statest who believes that the power of Washington is always benevolent and federal bureaucrats are smarter and wiser than the rest of us.

Republicans and Democrats are not in my eyes as radically different as they are portrayed in the media, and neither act on a lot of the ideas they espouse. I find the conservative/liberal paradim to be riddled with inconsistancies, and thus not truly relevant.

Both parties are largely made up of statests with differing emphasis, the Republicans seem to believe that people cannot make moral decisions for themselves hence the need for drug laws, anti abortion laws, marriage discrimination laws, and wars of conquest etc... Democrats on their part do not believe people can make the right financial decisions, hence their continued desires for higher taxes, greater government spending, expanding dependency,etc...

In the end to all politicians, we the people are just serfs, whose labor is to be used to keep them in power, so they can grant favors to their freinds, and punish their enemies. Both parties created this angry duopoly to keep us divided and blinded to the slow destruction of our once great republic. Basically this was established with Woodrow Wilson's and FDR's massive power grab and expansion of Federal power.

The Statests have won, to be honest, people have decided to succeed their soverignty in exchange for the illusion of material security and protection from all of life's potential ills. I can understand, after all you cannot eat freedom, or heat your home with it either.

We Libertarians are a dying breed, and the flame of free will flickers with each gust of new round of federal power. One day in the future when our Grand Children are milling around in labor camps to pay off our debts, they will curse us all.

Both parties are nothing more than two insincere sides of the same deceitful & manipulative coin with no real care or concern for anyone or anything but how to line their own greedy pockets, therefore, I don't trust or believe what either of them have to say.

Of course, that's just my not so humble opinion about 'em ... !!!

[pachyderm]

My not-too-useful advice to the two of you: don't get trapped by fears. It leads to reduced thinking skills: too-simplistic descriptions of "the other", and thus to more fear.

I dunno, Pachy ... I don't think it's fear for me as much as loathing ... See, I worked in government for 20 years, attended those sessions, saw for my own eyes and heard with my own ears what's actually going on.

It was always remarkable to me how they could say and do one thing behind closed doors while putting on such a marvelous mask of deceit and treachery while publicly addressing those who never actually witnessed exactly what they were doing - helping themselves more than anybody else.

Of course, that being said, occasionally a good and sincere statesman or stateswoman will come along that truly does try ... Alas, and unfortunately it's akin to salmon swimming upstream against grizzly bears ... The good ones rarely last very long, and that's an unfortunate thing for the rest of us.

At least the Democrats do offer us a few more crumbs from their table than the Republicans do, and with a lot less meanness and nastiness too.

Still doesn't seem quite right to me either way though.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Pfrog

I dunno, Pachy ... I don't think it's fear for me as much as loathing

When I examine my feelings of distaste or anger, I often find fear at the bottom of it.

Judging from looking at myself, reacting in a state of fear seems to impair one's ability to accurately assess the nature of the thing feared. Perhaps the brain sacrifices accuracy in an attempt to attain rapidity in judging how threatening a situation is.

Wait. Are we discussing my family! Oh sorry...my bad...errr, yes, the Ds and Rs

Originally Posted by Pfrog

It was always remarkable to me how they could say and do one thing behind closed doors while putting on such a marvelous mask of deceit and treachery while publicly addressing those who never actually witnessed exactly what they were doing - helping themselves more than anybody else.

Originally Posted by OutofTune

My bad, immature to laugh. But seriously, party of realism? Pretending that racial minorities, sexual/gender minorities, and folks living in poverty don't exist is like living in a fairy tale. There is nothing realistic about a party giving all their attention to rich, white, hetero-normative, cisgendered men.

This is not true.... Martin Luther King Jr. was a proud member of the Republican party. Why in the world would he belong if he felt that way...and the party has not changed that much since that time. The Republican party feels as though people should stand up for themselves and make it for themselves and not always look for and be willing to take handouts. Isn't that what our country is all about: the American Dream has never consisted of food stamps and unemployement. Don't get me wrong...those are necessary programs that are supposed to help people in their time of need, but many people don't want to work these days, they want to scrape by on whatever handouts they can get; feel as though they are entitled to live off of the govenment. I'm not attempting to say everything they do is right, but their ideals are good. The Democratic ideals are not bad, but they are often unrealistic. We cannot afford to pay for so many people to have a "free ride".

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Maranara

This is not true.... Martin Luther King Jr. was a proud member of the Republican party. Why in the world would he belong if he felt that way...and the party has not changed that much since that time.

I feel that it has changed a lot since that time. Maybe it can change back, maybe not.

Originally Posted by pachyderm

I feel that it has changed a lot since that time. Maybe it can change back, maybe not.

Go back even farther.....Abraham Lincoln.

Originally Posted by pachyderm

When I examine my feelings of distaste or anger, I often find fear at the bottom of it.

Judging from looking at myself, reacting in a state of fear seems to impair one's ability to accurately assess the nature of the thing feared. Perhaps the brain sacrifices accuracy in an attempt to attain rapidity in judging how threatening a situation is.

I see what you're saying ... However, based on my own personal experiences, I feel my feelings are pretty much right on target when it comes to the intent and actions of most politicians ... But, if there is any fear involved here, I'd say it's justified ... Corrupt governments are something to be feared ... Much damage can be done to societies whose leaders are corrupt ... Including ours.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Maranara

Go back even farther.....Abraham Lincoln.

Let's!

Except -- that was a time of great stress. Which was taken out on Lincoln.

[di meliora]

The Federalist No. 9

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

Independent Journal
Wednesday, November 21, 1787
[Alexander Hamilton]

To the People of the State of New York:

A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa09.htm

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction [political party], I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System:John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ty-system.html

Members of Congress take an oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

It is my belief our representatives regularly violate their oath with impunity, primarily by purposely evasion of constitutional dictates. Vice President Cheney simply ignored the Constitution after 9/11:

The United States of America is a nation of laws, not men. In our Supreme Court’s first and foremost landmark case, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (19803), Chief Justice John Marshall inveighed those words against Secretary of State James Madison.

“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not men.”

Cheney, and subsequently Bush, disagreed.

"It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We’ve got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we’re going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective. http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm

As I have said previously, both parties prize power. Many constituents merely stand by and allow constitutional rights to be trampled upon. Unless we stand up to the representatives, the Constitution may become just a piece of paper as President Bush is alleged to have said.

[Open Eyes]

I often worry about the fact that often politicians learn about the parts of society that are "whinning" in numbers and consider the numbers and what these numbers need to "hear" and then they "campain" on pretending they are actually "listening" somehow.

The question is, if money is thrown at a "perceived problem" how it resolves that problem depends on if those on the receiving end are actually going to use that money to "improve selves" or give selves a way to become "more dependant".

It isn't "just" about throwing funds at something that is a "problem".
It is about understanding the problem, the real problem in the first place and being able to have funds that really "resolve" the problem.

For example, the "no child left behind act". Well, yes, we do have a problem of children falling through the cracks, never seem to achieve and end up becoming a burden on society somehow. But that often simply doesn't get to the "real problem" which is addressing the conditions that child lives under outside the school system and in the home. What the people who raise that child simply do not know how to do and why it must be done so that their child can actually become a more functional part of society.

Children "imprint" on their parents and surroundings, so if a child has parents that have "money thrown at them" so they can live on welfare in a way were they actually just thrive on that, well that child will aspire to that as well. Ofcourse that is only "one" example.

We, as a society need to find ways to educate parents and caregivers of children what children truely "need" to thrive to the best way they can. And we have not been doing that. And children often suffer even if they are in higher class homes that "seem" to provide for them.

Personally, I am weary of all the fighting going on in Washington, these politicians are often "out of touch" with what society truely needs. They often get to this level of "ego" where they get out of touch with the real needs that should be addressed.

We have a lot of mental illness/depression and emotional challenges in today's society now, and there is often a reason to that that has to be addressed. And it has a lot to do with how familes are not really funtioning familes anymore. And it has come to the point where we do not have enough funds to make up for this problem.

[Open Eyes]

This latest incident has taught me alot, just by the way it was first addressed. The word "evil" was used alot, and some "blame" was put on the mother. So many quesitons we have all had. I think that it is better not to know sometimes, so we can ponder about all the different ways "our society" is set up so something like this "can" happen.

And I honestly hope that we will recognize that this problem is the problem we "all" have and it doesn't have any real "class" to it, it can truely come from any home situation. And, in all honesty, it doesn't even have a "political" affiliation to it either.

We are not paying attention to our "children" and we cannot "just" throw money at it either. And while I think having "uniforms" in schools could be a positive, a uniform is not going to solve a child's problem in the home or whatever they may be suffering in terms of abuse or neglect is concerned.

And when the politicans talk about the "debt" we are going to leave our children, the money part is truely not even scratching the surface.

If an African American from a single parent home that is at a low income level, can go to the olymipics and come home with gold medals and present a sense of balance and maturity any one of us would love to have in a child, what does that tell us?

Where is the "real infrastructure"? Is it a building? Is it an up to date new school?
Is it a good teacher? NO, it starts in the family unit and the parent's education on how to nurture their children properly "first". Along with that is the "community effort" that is there to "help this happen".

Our "government" cannot afford the "cost" of not having the right "real" infrastructure that needs to come first and foremost. And honestly, I don't think "gun control" would be as big an issue if the "real problem" was addressed.

Honestly, I have seen "amazing" children come from all kinds of homes. The one thing these "amazing" children had was the "parent" that was there for them, the "right way". And having that in place would cut down on so many of the social problems that cost Americans, billions of dollars and lives.

Any American that is planning on having a child should be demanded to get an "education" to do so. And we need to have a way to do that and also "if" we do have a "welfare" program, we should also have an educational program that "must be attended" that a parent on welfare can take to help them learn "how" to get themselves "out" of the welfare situation.

And I don't think this means "big government either". I think we need to establish this program in each state, that will only be overseen by the government. And all those that chopse to live within that state as a commuity need to all contribute.

Open Eyes

[Open Eyes]

What I noticed is that when a party loses an election they wonder "why" and then they examine the "voters" that the opposing party got supported by that gave them that win. And then they figure out how to get "that group" to vote for them the next election. That is basically what the Republican party is doing now. However, these parties are not genuinely looking at the needs of these groups, they are only looking for how these groups can be "marketed" for "votes". And their "talking points" are set around gaining these "voters" but that doesn't mean the politican is really going to "help" that group of individuals. They will only do whatever "minimum" they have to in order to "keep" that group of voters. I have touched on this in my other post, but it is just something that keeps coming up in my mind that I don't feel the general public sees tbh because they get swept up in the heat of the election and what they "want to hear" is constantly in the talking points of these candidates, while painting the opposing candidate to not be trusted.

For example, we now, for the first time have an African American President. However the African American men in America are suffering from at least 14% unemployment, which is higher than the national average.

During the Clinton Presidency there was an effort to get a way for Americans to buy more homes and be able to borrow money to do so. And that was carried along in the Bush administration as well. Unfortunately, Americans "over borrowed" and ofcourse we also had those that took advantage of that effort for "selfish reasons" and we all know the end result. But the bottom line is that Americans had "wants and needs" and "over borrowed". And what I see happening is now Obama has "wants and needs" and he is "over borrowing" and we are beginning to see that this too will have a bad ending. So, I do feel we have to stop and pay attention to "what we can actually afford" and "what we spend money on that could be cut".

I understand that Obama's "passion" is in the "social needs" of Americans, however, we do have to consider, "what we can actually afford to do".

It is my hope that our political parties can get "beyond" the egos of "winning or losing" this past election and actually move towards figuring out how we can actually resolve our present financially poor condition we are actually in first. I pray, that our politicians "stop" and consider ways to stop this divide going on in our country as well. A "good president" IMO will notice that because our country is divided that he should "listen" and "compromise" instead of being determined to march to his own drum of "ego". Especially considering he only won by about 51%.

When I listen to alot of the youth of today, they all seem to want to be "great" somehow. When did we get that way, what happened to just finding who we "are" and be the best we can be?

Open Eyes

In FY 2010 the US government spent $259B on programs commonly referred to as welfare.
$1.2T was spent on defense. That doesn't include monies allocated as military aid to Israel, Pakistan, etc
Approximately $100B went for corporate welfare in the form of direct and indirect subsidies and tax breaks.
Maybe someone can explain why welfare is always the focus when the conversation turns to federal debt and big government spending?
Are both major parties equally bad? Come on... how often do you hear republicans talk about the environment or the poor of America?

[Timgt5]

George, "talk" is cheap, actually solving the problems of the enviroment, poverty, etc... requires smart policies that actually produce results.

You rightfully complain about corporate welfare, but I do not hear your support for the one and only solution to this issue which is to re-write the tax code, and eliminate all subsidies completely, and create a small list of deductions universal and applicable for all businesses regardless of size. This of course will not happen, both parties line their pockets with corporate dollars and will continue to support whatever "breaks" favor their friends. Do not expect either party to pay nothing more than lip service to real tax reform.

You talk about defense expendatures. Libertarians like myself have long advocated reducing military spending and dismantling the American "Empire" Even the Pentagon has requested reduced budgets for certain programs, yet congress continues to pump more money where it is not needed. There are many military bases throughout the world that do not need to be open anymore. Democrats are all gung ho for reducing defense right up to the point cutting expendatures means shutting down a project that creates jobs in their district or closing a base in their state, sorry you cannot have it both ways.

As for fixing poverty, Open Eyes has it right, it is easy to throw money at the problem, then make ourselves feel better that we "helped" the poor. It is a way to simply avoid those very uncomfortable conversations on why people are stuck in a continous cycle of misery for generations, a phenomenon unique by the way to modern America. Prior to the launch of the "Great Society" under LBJ multi generational poverty was very rare in America, so our trillions in allocation over the last several decades have not only not solved poverty but institutionalized it instead. We have built a massive infrastructure of "Anti Poverty" agencies but ironically it has become in the best interest of the bureaucrats who work in and run the programs to the tune in some cases of six figure income to perpetuate the problem for their own personal gain. The statistics on who exactly is "poor" are being manipulated to ensure ever increasing funding for programs, even ones than have been proven to fail in their stated purpose.

Unfortunately the second someone like me asks the question "How well is the money being spent and are we getting the best results for every dollar of expenditure?" Legions of "progressive" politicians, lobbyists, activist groups show up on MSNBC/FOX/CNN/CSPAN and demonize that persion for "not caring about the poor" So no one ever bothers to ask the questions that should actually be asked, including who benefits most from federal anti poverty programs, the recepients, or the well paid folks who hand out the checks?

http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=3157

It comes down to this, a very large swath of the American public has been convinced that we can have scandanavian welfare benefits, and somehow it all can be carried on the backs of a few. That folks is a fairy tale. You see if you took a deep dive into how countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark pay for Single Payer HC and "Free" college you find all of this is financed through a highly regressive tax system that hits their middle class citizens very hard. The middle class in these countries carries a much greater portion of the burden of funding these programs than it does in the US. So as a result they have to take a significant hit in their standard of living to fund these benefits. If were to implement comparable programs here, effective middle class tax rates here would jump to over 40%. That means giving up the 2000 square ft plus homes, the leased 30K SUV in the garage etc... Life is about tradeoffs, to believe we can have benefits fall to us like manna from heaven without sacrificing something else for them, is simply foolish.

As for energy policy I am all for ending our dependency on fossil fuels, as these are finite and dirty sources of energy. The problem I have is our rush to look for simple answers based on emotion rather than hard analysis. We have an advanced civilization that needs a lot of reliable energy to maintain. I have looked at all sides of solar and wind. On a small scale these forms of power can alleviate the demand for FFs but scaling them up as a replacement for large wholesale power generations posesses more problems with regards to land usage and reliabilty issues. Our funding should be then dirrected toward further research into sources of energy that are carbon free and can actually meet all of our needs, without forcing a decline in our standard of living, a daunting challenge to be sure, but one we can meet over time, if we work smarter, not just harder. FFs dominate because they are currently the most cost efficient way to power our society, the trick to replacing them with "green" energy is to find a solution which can be proven to be both clean and more cost efficient. Some of my Mutuals are invested in companies that do this kind of research, because I do support it as private citizen.

I agree with a lot of what you said Tim but no, she does not have it right nor do you.
You are both basing your positions on mythology. And possibly worse than that especially in her case it's a matter of looking at a small part of the picture and then misinterpreting it.
I'm being generous in assuming that people misinterpret this.
The myth that there are welfare legacy families is out there but the evidence contracts this belief.
1. Federal and state laws require able-bodied adult Welfare participants to engage in education, job preparation, or other work-related activities in order to collect benefits.
2. Most families collect Welfare benefits for only a few months at a time.
3. Families headed by able-bodied adults can collect Welfare benefits for only 60 months... five years... in their lifetimes.
4. Welfare recipients must produce identification... Social Security cards for every household member, rent receipts, utility bills, bank records, employment records etc

Focusing the federal debt problem on Social Welfare costs is disingenuous... at best.
And I'm sorry but I can't accept the views of a free-market website that refuses to publish its own funding sources.

[DocJohn]

Folks, this thread is hardly avoiding the discussion of politics, as directed by our guidelines. With the elections over, we're again enforcing this provision of the guidelines more rigidly, and ask that you limit your direct discussion of politics, as people hold pretty strong opinions and views on this matter (and at least in this discussion, it doesn't appear to be relevant to mental health at this point in the thread).

Thanks,
DocJohn