Interpreatations of many things can differ; thus we have
Opel and VW.Originally Posted by Fuchs
Yes, that word "welfare" can have differing interpretations. However, you're still missing the point;
The Feds take in the most money, so much that even in their wildest schemes, they cannot spend it all. Thus they pass a large quantity of funding down to States, local governments and even NGOs to spend on project of dubious merit. Because of the way the Federal budgeting process works, those funds are not provided to end user for best applications but for specific program items like this (LINK). That's a small amount but those types of thing repeat in every State. It adds up. The issue is both for what the money must be spent and the Federal diktat ability that overrides State and local desires and concerns. Add the not inconsequential costs of administering such inefficiency and simply allowing the proper level of government to do its own taxing for its responsibilities without intrusion for above would be a tremendous saving.
Of course, the problem with that is the centralizers and control freaks lose control...Yes, it is. I have watched the US in three generations go from a relatively free and wealthy nation with a number of innovative and forward looking people to a nation of introspective, risk averse folks who want the government to fix everything. That cannot happen, no nation ever has, can now or will ever be able to afford to do that.The 19th century 'social peace' thing isn't so important here...Again, you miss the point. Are you doing that purposely?Austerity measures that hit the poor by cutting transfers will cause social troubles and unrest, that's what's counts.
The issue is to stop transfers, yes -- but not to cut programs; I have not suggested stopping any program. I have suggested instead simply to support the program at the appropriate level of government. National defense is a federal responsibility, period. Social Welfare (in your definition), broadly, is a State and local responsibility. Education is a local responsibility.
Most Europeans with their relatively small nations -- Germany is smaller than Montana, France is larger but smaller than Texas -- long tradition of centralized government and until recently fairly homogeneous populations do not understand that federalism and a decentralized approach to governance is far more necessary in the US.I thought as much, so do some in the US who agree with that approach. I'm not among them, I'm with the majority in the US who think such 'peace' is an ephemeral chimera and views it with great skepticism.By the way; Germans rather think of Erhardt and his Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy) at the keyword Sozialer Friede (social peace).Steve Blair answered that, I'll only add that most people went to find land as you say -- and to work for those people he cited; a good mix. Little is as simple as you seem to wish......Europe had no uncolonized West where the poor could go and grab natural resources to fix their economic problems.
I'll also point out that most of those '"poor" you cite were recent immigrants who left Europe because they didn't want to be there, thought the opportunities in the US would be better. found that to be true, stayed here -- and are no longer European and do not think like Europeans; their values often differ markedly.
With that, we've bored everyone with this off thread chatter. We will disagree on most of that and that's okay. What we can agree upon, I suspect, and thus return to the thread is this:
Social welfare is arguably a federal responsibility but national defense is unquestionably federal. The US has fiscal problems that are self induced but adequate funding should be available to keep forces at current or somewhat lower levels with only slight degradation. Whether that's desirable or not is a policy question on which people can and will differ. The answer to the question "Is the US Military Affordable?" will not determined by anything written at the Small Wars Council. Time will tell.
Bookmarks