[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley But the vast bureaucracy favored by the Statists offers nothing but negative side effects.

All systems offer negitive side effects. The question is really which offers the least negetive side effects. And it is not just a question of quantity, it is a question of overall effect. So, if my system offers the negitive side effects of say, a group of people who are a constant drain on the welfare system because they do not want to work, and your system offers the negitive side effect that all those people who would have not worked are now not working AND breaking into our houses and stealing our VCR's, the question becomes which system costs you more in the end. You don't lose the tax dollars to welfare, you lose the tax dollars to the prison system (where you have to pay for their food and the costs of the guards to watch them) and you also lose your VCR. I think my system offers a net gain to the populace. There is a great book on this very subject. It is called "From Poor Law to Welfare State", you should pick it up and give it a read.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Theft, power usurpation, criminal conduct, unaccountability, all the things you say are rampant in the private sector have never been worse than they are now, under government control.

Yes they have. Read about what went on when they were building the railroads. Read about the Teapot Dome Scandal. I realize we had government then, but it was a government much more to your liking. Cheaters, thiefs and lying bastards will always be a problem. They will always find ways to cheat, steal and lie.

Quote by: Milton Bradley This is why welfare state problems should be handled through charities, and philanthropic ventures rather than government.

As above, read "From Poorlaw..,", we have the system that we have because private charity and philanthropic ventures never generate enough to handle the problem. Government took over entirely because of that.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Hmmm, isn't that a bad example on your part, as that exaclty what you Liberals claim Bush is doing?

The government isn't making money, oil companies and Halaburton are. Don't look so hard for the smartass comeback that you forget to be accurate.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I know you can always come up with reasons to coerce my money from me, but how about actually supporting some of those contentions for once.

Okey-Doke. I contend that as we move further away from FDR's system and closer to the ideal you support, the rich are getting way richer and the poor are in a rut. Here is some support for that contention. Image:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I contend that welfare reform is not a net gain for society. Start at pg 21 of this report for an overview of what the "crackdown" on the non-working poor might be and is doing. http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/D454.pdf

I contend that education increases the the per capita productivity of a nation. Check out this, Countries with the lowest rates of literacy, and this, FRB: Bernanke, Education and Economic Competitiveness, and this,The Economic Impact of Higher Education. Want more? I can find it easily.

Quote by: Milton Bradley The governments been involded in this since FDR, and the problems just keep getting worse.

Really? According to this, Historical Poverty Tables, poverty levels dropped year to year during the heyday of "The Welfare State" and *bing*, started going up again after welfare reform. I think that supports my contention that "The Welfare State" did not and does not increase the problem of poverty.

Quote by: Milton Bradley As far as my knowledge of history goes, the Welfare State is a proven failure. Why do you continue to believe otherwise? ( I know it's really just your Liberal agenda, but I'm hoping you plan on actually supporting some of your contentions. )

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And I have SUPPORTED MY CONTENTIONS! Don't you just hate me now?