I do, but I’m wondering what you thought so that’s why I’m asking.
Perhaps, but only so those people feel like they need the govt. They dont want the production class to be ‘on welfare.’ but its ok if they get a little something, so the producers feel like they benefit, and so the govt has some leverage.
I’d seriously doubt that that would be anyone’s conscious goal. It might be the effects of their policies and they might register this one some level, but I would be amazed if anyone actually implementing policies realized the effects of what they were doing the way that you are laying it out.
Edit
Also, I see relatively little evidence of this in the first place. It’s not like the Dems are pushing forward huge welfare measures.
There are useful idiots, tacticians, campaign managers, and strategicians in the political class. Not to mention doubles and penetrations. With all the money and power at stake its hard to imagine that every single member of the political class is some sort of idiot who is unaware of the effect of the policies he enacts and enforces.
Neo, have you ever read Saul Alinsky?
Nah, I doubt it. But politicians have a natural inclination to want people to become dependent on them.
If you read Rollback, you’ll find a section that says that some agencies get funding per welfare recipient - therefore, they sometimes sit around trying to figure out how to get more people to get on welfare.
Bismarckian politics would say, the path to power is to get as many people financially dependent on you as possible. It’s the same path the late Roman emperors took. It’s worked for Chavez, it’s generally the entire appeal of communism.
If you study history, you’d see that those who promised largesse from public coffers were able to become dictators. If your goal was total power, it’s a logical path to pursue. I’m quite sure there are many professors and politicians who realize exactly what’s going on, but want to make sure simply that they or their allies are the ones who get total control of society.
Oh would you now?
To this question I would say duh.
They do:
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.”
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm
Oh, and I might add since LBJ and the “Great” Society.
what do you mean by welfare, does having a military count as welfare? i thought the general welfare was simply stuff like military, police, and courts.
it’s the democrats goal to have more people contributing than taking.
the logic of a safty net is that people bounce up and go back to contributing more than they took. people cycle through being able to give more. a baby needs some nurishment to turn into a contributing adult.
those that make the most, made the most because of the system and thus pay a larger percent back as they have made the most from the system
how many husbands want their wives and children to be fully independant / hostile to the husband for finance, protection, and decision making?
i would figure and husband or any wife would want some interdependance and think there is a mutualy benefitual relationship.
this is true but they want to give something to the net contributors otherwise those individuals wont feel as though they benefit from the system (and correctly so) and they will be amenable to a change that would benefit them.
youre correct, this is one of the incorrect assumptions that underpins the system.
how many people want to be married to the government?
a lot of people participate in government and want it involved in their lives for one purpose or another.
i think it’s a tiny minority of people that don’t want a relationship to government in some form or another.
a lot of people are parts of larger organization than father-wife-children from members of a church to members of a government. those larger forms of social groups are parts off many people’s lives and the groups provide perceived benefits or would be broken.
many people around the world have government or larger group than the immediate family as part of or a extension of the family or social group.
thats not the same as “being married to the govt” or the codependence that you describe.
unique among these larger groups is government in that it must force (or coerce or deceive) people to be part of it and support it, otherwise it surely would not exist.
joseph smith was leader of church and government of the mormon community. both seem like they fit “force, coerce, or deceive”. can organisations led by the same person have such different premises without being connected?
Youre losing me. Those arent two different organizations. A government that cloaks itself in religion isnt “a govt and a religion, big mystery, which rules apply???” but simply a govt that has a religious propaganda effort.
can’t there also be religions with a govt propaganda effort such as theocracy like gary north talks about or is it just the other way?
Sure but the govt is the part that makes it bad. You cant use govt as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in order to saddle religion with coercion. Sure, its bad. What else do you want me to say?
well if the religion says god gives authority for a government, then god would be given authority for something bad, or it’s humans using deception.
Religion does not = God. See above.