The Left and my theory as to why they love the government

It is imaginary because in order to receive any kind of benefits the MAJORITY of those people are HARDWORKING Americans.

They are only receive benefits because the Republicans in Congress REFUSE to require that corporations pay LIVING WAGES with benefits so it is left up to the TAXPAYERS to SUBSIDIZE CORPORATIONS.

Yes, that is the UGLY TRUTH that no one on the right wants to admit is actually happening.

That $850 billion is CORPORATE WELFARE in the form taxpayer subsidized workers.

As far as the Obama situation goes that was only because of the REPUBLICAN Great Recession that crashed the economy.

So if you want to END welfare just get your fat and lazy representatives to pass the regulations necessary to ensure that CORPORATE WELFARE is ended by making them PAY what the labor of hardworking Americans is actually worth and you will see that $850 billion shrink to around 5% of the population.

 

some criticize others for loveing our government...isn't that criticism unpatriotic?

 

I'm assuming that which you speak plays a part yea.

I do think though it's all about power and both parties want it they just have different ways to go about it. Generally speak left uses government as their primary tool whereas right uses business.

 

You speak as if Democrats haven't sold out to corporations too fox

 

Life is such a simple thing for "conservatives." Get a job, work hard, raise a family, love the flag, clutch you bible keep a few guns around. Do these things and you are a patriotic and productive participant in the Great American Dream. Don't do these things and you are straphanger, a mooch, a seeker of free stuff, a government puppy dog.

Your OP projecting a newly released prisoner's woes and anger at a system to an entire population of Americans (Liberals) is a regular ploy of so called "conservatives." Most "conservatives" turn liberal real fast when the loose their job, pension, and the big one -- health care. What differentiates many of us from the Trump philosophy is that we have empathy. We know that some folks can fall on hard times through no fault of their own. We also know some the game the system the way businesses and governments do. Some are even conservatives.

 

So free health care for illegal aliens is the answer.

 

Safety nets are a good thing but there are some who take advantage of that system

 

It appears your answer to my post is a Trump red herring.

 

Always.

 

You mean todays democrat platform.

 

I don't want to end public assistance, there are truly deserving Americans who need it. What I object to is passing it out like candy to recruit voters. What I object to is to create a carrot on a stick that is enough to attract these voters but robs them of their own self determination, self sufficiency and self worth. In many cases this is cradle to grave and multi generational, how is that not dependance? The use of public funds for political purposes is immoral if not downright criminal. The welfare state has evolved from a hand up during tough times to entitlements, even the word entitlement is a leftist machination to entice and entrap the unwary. It is the left that coined the word entitlement to replace benefits because benefits had a negative connotation and would deter people from applying for them. The left needed something sugary to lure people into the system and entitlement sounds like something one has earned and therefore ok to subscribe to. You mentioned hardworking people receiving benefits, really, sign me up, free money!!! If you work, for whatever salary in most cases you are not qualified for assistance, you are not entitled, there is very little in the way of cafeteria style welfare, that would make too much sense. Conversely if you do not work and want benefits you must accept the full package. Here in Massachusetts that amounts to the equivalent of $50,544 dollars in pre tax wages or $24.30 an hour. Nice huh? Who would opt out of that to work instead? Do you see how that is dependance? Massachusetts is a one party state, that is, Democrat, gee I wonder why? Massachusetts is not on board with attracting new jobs here or at all interested in the tremendous economic recovery going on in America that would affect their business.

 

Why not just say Keynesian Economics instead of all the obfuscation..

 

Why? Because it has nothing to do with Keynesianism.

 

Really? Neoclassical economic has nothing to do with Keynesian Economics?

 

Yep. Bit bleedin obvious really. Neoclassical economics predates Keynes and refers to marginalism based on methodological individualism. Its microeconomics. Keynes refers to macroeconomics. You could refer to how neo-Keynesianism isnt necessarily in conflict with neoclassical analysis, but that's old hat stuff. Post-Keynesianism, for example, rejects marginal cost pricing.

 

Its still the basis of your theme You advocate government track and micromanage all aspects of costs, production, profits and so on.. Simply a form of socialism..

 

You've made a crass error. Confusing Keynesianism and neoclassical economics, particularly as I signposted it for you, really wasnt cunning. You've then lied about my stance. That shows a lack of manners.

 

Well I'll just let it go at get a job, work hard.. Is that really to much to ask any able bodied person?

 

The operative word is able bodied. There are some who cannot work and we must separate them from some who will not work.

 

Nope you are feeling threatened now You clearly used Neoclassical in regards to economics, so why is that?

Again?

Keynes and his followers

So why all the obfuscation and simply discuss socialism and complete Government control of all aspects of life

 

Good eye, that why I put in my post..

 

I'm not threatened by right wingers who don't understand right wing economics. Disappointed? Yep.

Market failure is a microeconomic concept based, in these examples, of a distinction between marginal private benefits and marginal social benefits. To refer to Keynesianism was just very silly!

More incoherence. Keynes was pro-capitalist. He had no support for socialism. You can refer to differences in Keynesian schools of thought. Neo-Keynesianism, built around the Phillips Curve and IS/LM, suggests government can simply choose an unemployment-inflation combination according to some social welfare function. Post-Keynesians, however, provide more indepth analysis that can account for risk of economic crisis.

You're also wrong about socialism. I adopt a market socialist approach which is consistent with Austrian Economics. That's the irony of the right wing. Their market fundamentalism actually increases the role of government. They're statists without knowing it.

 

Well you should choose your wording better then If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well the obvious conclusion is ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

You can't blame me for your crass error. You've served a purpose mind you, confirming economic knowledge deficiency prevalent amongst the right wing. Cheers!

 

Keynesian vs. Austrian Economics-The Infographic.

Again
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well the obvious conclusion is ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯