What We Believe #3 - Wealth Creation

[Phatscotty]

#1 Small Government and Free Enterprise.

Bill Whittle chalks out the basics of Tea Party Conservatism. In this segment, Bill talks about the advantages of small government and free enterprise.

[Phatscotty]

In Part 2 of his series on what Tea Party Conservatives believe, Bill looks at the problems and dangers associated with elitism and elitist philosophy.

[Woodruff]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

[Phatscotty]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

No. Government welfare, in all it's forms, is a staple of big government and redistribution of wealth.

[Symmetry]

Is "redistribution of wealth" a phrase you've ever thought about, or is it something you heard and have been trained to repeat?

[Phatscotty]

Is "redistribution of wealth" a phrase you've ever thought about, or is it something you heard and have been trained to repeat?

I think about it every second Monday Symm....

[Woodruff]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

No. Government welfare, in all it's forms, is a staple of big government and redistribution of wealth.

The welfare already existed, so that is irrelevant to my question - would you like to answer the question? Or was the "no" the answer to my question?

[Symmetry]

Is "redistribution of wealth" a phrase you've ever thought about, or is it something you heard and have been trained to repeat?

I think about it every second Monday Symm....

Are you saying you use it more often than you think about it?

[Woodruff]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

No. Government welfare, in all it's forms, is a staple of big government and redistribution of wealth.

I thought when I made a purchase that was a redistribution of wealth...isn't it?

[saxitoxin]

I watched the first 60 seconds or so of Scott's second video and this may be a case of shooting the message when you should be shooting the messenger (no offense, Scott).

Whittle, whomever he is, makes a few pretty decent example-based points about the evolution of the U.S. into a crowned republic, where an entrenched political caste controls the levers of power; three of his five examples are Republicans.

From the sixty-seconds or so I watched it's difficult for me to put down the video too heavily since I've made the same comments here in The Club as a reason for abolishing elections.

[BigBallinStalin]

I watched the first 60 seconds or so of Scott's second video and this may be a case of shooting the message when you should be shooting the messenger (no offense, Scott).

Whittle, whomever he is, makes a few pretty decent example-based points about the evolution of the U.S. into a crowned republic, where an entrenched political caste controls the levers of power; three of his five examples are Republicans.

From the sixty-seconds or so I watched it's difficult for me to put down the video too heavily since I've made the same comments here in The Club as a reason for abolishing elections.

Why abolish elections? Since the 1910s, we see the beginning of the significant growth of government, so I don't see elections being the main problem.

(Of course, it depends on what kind of political system you favor as an alternative to any system which uses elections.)

[Phatscotty]

I watched the first 60 seconds or so of Scott's second video and this may be a case of shooting the message when you should be shooting the messenger (no offense, Scott).

Whittle, whomever he is, makes a few pretty decent example-based points about the evolution of the U.S. into a crowned republic, where an entrenched political caste controls the levers of power; three of his five examples are Republicans.

From the sixty-seconds or so I watched it's difficult for me to put down the video too heavily since I've made the same comments here in The Club as a reason for abolishing elections.

Why abolish elections? Since the 1910s, we see the beginning of the significant growth of government, so I don't see elections being the main problem.

(Of course, it depends on what kind of political system you favor as an alternative to any system which uses elections.)

He meant to say "elitist banker" controlled elections. 1910 sounds about right.

[Woodruff]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

No. Government welfare, in all it's forms, is a staple of big government and redistribution of wealth.

The welfare already existed, so that is irrelevant to my question - would you like to answer the question? Or was the "no" the answer to my question?

Ok then, since you're not answering, I'll go with "No" as your answer to my question unless you state otherwise. Since you recognize that it is not "small government" to create drug testing for welfare recipients, then I conclude that you're not really interested in "small government" at all. You're simply interested in "what Phatscotty wants government".

[Night Strike]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

No. Government welfare, in all it's forms, is a staple of big government and redistribution of wealth.

The welfare already existed, so that is irrelevant to my question - would you like to answer the question? Or was the "no" the answer to my question?

Ok then, since you're not answering, I'll go with "No" as your answer to my question unless you state otherwise. Since you recognize that it is not "small government" to create drug testing for welfare recipients, then I conclude that you're not really interested in "small government" at all. You're simply interested in "what Phatscotty wants government".

The small government approach would be to remove the welfare.

[Phatscotty]

In Part 3 of the series, Bill shows how wealth can be created from thin air.

[Woodruff]

Is it small government to create drug testing for welfare recipients?

No. Government welfare, in all it's forms, is a staple of big government and redistribution of wealth.

The welfare already existed, so that is irrelevant to my question - would you like to answer the question? Or was the "no" the answer to my question?

Ok then, since you're not answering, I'll go with "No" as your answer to my question unless you state otherwise. Since you recognize that it is not "small government" to create drug testing for welfare recipients, then I conclude that you're not really interested in "small government" at all. You're simply interested in "what Phatscotty wants government".

The small government approach would be to remove the welfare.

That is an extreme logical fallacy. The welfare exists. Does it cause small government to pile more government on top of the welfare? Because that's what you Tea Partiers seem to support.

You Tea Partiers really are just a bunch of Big Business suckups who don't actually believe what you spout, aren't you? It's really too bad. You guys and the Occupy movement should've come together like brothers, but instead you were spending too much of your time talking about how awful the Occupy movement was. That was the most obvious clue that you don't really believe in the Tea Party ideals.

[Night Strike]

The small government approach would be to remove the welfare.

That is an extreme logical fallacy. The welfare exists. Does it cause small government to pile more government on top of the welfare? Because that's what you Tea Partiers seem to support.

You Tea Partiers really are just a bunch of Big Business suckups who don't actually believe what you spout, aren't you? It's really too bad. You guys and the Occupy movement should've come together like brothers, but instead you were spending too much of your time talking about how awful the Occupy movement was.

Where is the logical fallacy? Tea Partiers support responsible government, with typically the most responsible form of government being one that is as small as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that it's responsible to hand money over to drug addicts, so the solution would be to either remove all the money handouts or make sure the money doesn't go to drug addicts.

And the Occupy movement became completely awful, considering they promoted lawlessness and destruction. They aren't worth allying against, especially for the group of people that want small government. Occupy just wants more governmental handouts and mandates.

[Woodruff]

The small government approach would be to remove the welfare.

That is an extreme logical fallacy. The welfare exists. Does it cause small government to pile more government on top of the welfare? Because that's what you Tea Partiers seem to support.

You Tea Partiers really are just a bunch of Big Business suckups who don't actually believe what you spout, aren't you? It's really too bad. You guys and the Occupy movement should've come together like brothers, but instead you were spending too much of your time talking about how awful the Occupy movement was.

Where is the logical fallacy?

I pointed out the fallacy for you quite clearly. Try reading it.

Tea Partiers support responsible government, with typically the most responsible form of government being one that is as small as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that it's responsible to hand money over to drug addicts, so the solution would be to either remove all the money handouts or make sure the money doesn't go to drug addicts.

So you don't actually believe in smaller government then. In the future, please don't say that you do, or I will have to call you the liar that you are at that point. Thanks!

And the Occupy movement became completely awful, considering they promoted lawlessness and destruction. They aren't worth allying against, especially for the group of people that want small government. Occupy just wants more governmental handouts and mandates.

Thank you for the shining example of proving my point. It was very thoughtful of you to do that.

[Night Strike]

My statement of "small government would remove welfare" is fallacious simply because welfare exists? Because that's the only statement you made after your claim that I stated a fallacy.

I'm sorry that you simply can't understand this drug testing of welfare recipients argument. People do not have a right to be handed money from the government, so the government has the authority to put conditions on the receipt of that money. In fact, that would be the responsible thing to do to make sure that money isn't being wasted. If you think being responsible in the money that's being paid out is actually a big government program, then we'll just get rid of ALL welfare. There's no doubt then that the government would be smaller.

[Phatscotty]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

[Woodruff]

My statement of "small government would remove welfare" is fallacious simply because welfare exists?

Yes, because the question specifically regarded the drug testing of those welfare recipients. Thus, the fact that there are welfare recipients TO BE DRUG TESTED is a given. You understand the difference between a variable and a non-variable, right?

I'm sorry that you simply can't understand this drug testing of welfare recipients argument.

I thought you liked the Constitution, Night Strike? I thought you believed in following it completely. You've decided against the Constitution now? Make up your mind.

[Woodruff]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

Yet you guys don't want to drug test EVERYONE that receives government money - only the poor people.

[Phatscotty]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

Yet you guys don't want to drug test EVERYONE that receives government money - only the poor people.

I am for the states deciding if they want to drug test or not. Whether a person in a certain state is poor or rich has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should watch this video because it addresses a lot of preconceptions you carry.

[Woodruff]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

Yet you guys don't want to drug test EVERYONE that receives government money - only the poor people.

I am for the states deciding if they want to drug test or not.

So you don't believe in the Constitution, then? Because the Constitution says that's unConstitutional. I thought you wanted us to follow the Constitution?

Whether a person in a certain state is poor or rich has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should watch this video because it addresses a lot of preconceptions you carry.

I have no preconceptions on this particular issue as it relates to you, as I am going strictly by what you have posted in these fora. You do not favor drug testing the CEOs of corporations that recieve government money, who are in fact much more likely to be drug users than welfare recipients are. Thus, your only rationale for drug testing welfare recipients is because they are poor.

[Phatscotty]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

Yet you guys don't want to drug test EVERYONE that receives government money - only the poor people.

I am for the states deciding if they want to drug test or not.

So you don't believe in the Constitution, then? Because the Constitution says that's unConstitutional. I thought you wanted us to follow the Constitution?

Whether a person in a certain state is poor or rich has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should watch this video because it addresses a lot of preconceptions you carry.

I have no preconceptions on this particular issue as it relates to you, as I am going strictly by what you have posted in these fora. You do not favor drug testing the CEOs of corporations that recieve government money, who are in fact much more likely to be drug users than welfare recipients are. Thus, your only rationale for drug testing welfare recipients is because they are poor.

There have been ruling that it is constitutional, as well as unconstitutional. You are not fully aware of the history of the issue. If it was unconstitutional, as you suggest, then the Supreme Court would be taking it up. The Supreme Court isn't taking it up, which proves your statement is incorrect.

The states decide. My opinion on the issue is irrelevant. Get that through your head! This issue is about a year old. It's over. It happened. Deal with it.