Why do people hate Liberals?

[Foxfyre]

But until we can understand what government money actually is, and the cost to us for governmenting having it, there is no way to move from that point to what the role of government and money actually should be.

Oh, you're too complicated for me, Foxy !!

My view is: reduce the War Machine until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, and send the military and their minions to re-education camps where they can learn what it is to be a civilian and a citizen, then I think there will be plenty of money for what I propose -- and a lot left over, too!!

.

Again the War Machine is a totally different subject. But I agree the concept may be too complicated for you or any other liberal. Not your fault. It's just the way it is, at least based on the experience I have had with liberals to date.

Again the concept it:

Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.​

Do you agree with that concept or not? If not, why not?

It's just as simple as that. Not really complicated for the average conservative at all. Is there any liberal who can understand it as a stand alone statement?

 

[numan]

Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

Do you agree with that concept or not?

Of course I do not agree with such palaeolithic notions of economics !!

'
Complexity Economics

Complexity economics is the application of complexity science to the problems of economics. It studies computer simulations to gain insight into economic dynamics, and avoids the assumption that the economy is a system in equilibrium....
More generally, complexity economics models are often used to study how non-intuitive results at the macro-level of a system can emerge from simple interactions at the micro level. This avoids assumptions of the representative agent method, which attributes outcomes in collective systems as the simple sum of the rational actions of the individuals....

The Economic Complexity Index (ECI) introduced by Hausmann and Hidalgo is highly predictive of future GDP per capita growth. Hausmann, Hidalgo et al. show that the ability of the ECI to predict future GDP per capita growth is between 5 times and 20 times larger than the World Bank's measure of governance, the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and standard measures of human capital, such as years of schooling and cognitive ability....

Several features of complex systems that deserve greater attention in economics:

1. Dispersed interaction—The economy has interaction between many dispersed, heterogeneous, agents. The action of any given agent depends upon the anticipated actions of other agents and on the aggregate state of the economy.

2. No global controller—Controls are provided by mechanisms of competition and coordination between agents. Economic actions are mediated by legal institutions, assigned roles, and shifting associations. No global entity controls interactions. Traditionally, a fictitious auctioneer has appeared in some mathematical analyses of general equilibrium models, although nobody claimed any descriptive accuracy for such models. Traditionally, many mainstream models have imposed constraints, such as requiring that budgets be balanced, and such constraints are avoided in complexity economics.

3. Cross-cutting hierarchical organization—The economy has many levels of organization and interaction. Units at any given level behaviors, actions, strategies, products typically serve as "building blocks" for constructing units at the next higher level. The overall organization is more than hierarchical, with many sorts of tangling interactions (associations, channels of communication) across levels.

4. Ongoing adaptation—Behaviors, actions, strategies, and products are revised frequently as the individual agents accumulate experience.

5. Novelty niches—Such niches are associated with new markets, new technologies, new behaviors, and new institutions. The very act of filling a niche may provide new niches. The result is ongoing novelty.

6. Out-of-equilibrium dynamics—Because new niches, new potentials, new possibilities, are continually created, the economy functions without attaining any optimum or global equilibrium. Improvements occur regularly.

Or is that too complicated for you, Foxy?
.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.

The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.

It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.

.

I almost wish I had an argument with any of these statements. But alas, I must agree. Can you please call Obama and tell him to set TX adrift?

 

[Wry Catcher]

A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.

Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.

Surely you jest.

Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.

But you don't see the world as black and white, good and evil ...! LOL.

 

[RKMBrown]

So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.

The concept: public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

My rationale for that statement:

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.

Now spending is a different thing. The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have. A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.

However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.

But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall. It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.

It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing. We wouldn't even notice the cost. But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.

And everybody feels that.

Note: This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view. It is a pure statement of fact.

Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view? Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?" Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?

I am throwing the gauntlet down here. I'm going to say no liberal will even try. And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true. I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.

Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.

But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.

Sigh. Every once in a blue moon. Govco does get something right. Alaska purchase. Good job. Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment. Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.

Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money. Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.

 

[Foxfyre]

Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

Do you agree with that concept or not?

Of course I do not agree with such palaeolithic notions of economics !!

'
Complexity Economics

Complexity economics is the application of complexity science to the problems of economics. It studies computer simulations to gain insight into economic dynamics, and avoids the assumption that the economy is a system in equilibrium....
More generally, complexity economics models are often used to study how non-intuitive results at the macro-level of a system can emerge from simple interactions at the micro level. This avoids assumptions of the representative agent method, which attributes outcomes in collective systems as the simple sum of the rational actions of the individuals....

The Economic Complexity Index (ECI) introduced by Hausmann and Hidalgo is highly predictive of future GDP per capita growth. Hausmann, Hidalgo et al. show that the ability of the ECI to predict future GDP per capita growth is between 5 times and 20 times larger than the World Bank's measure of governance, the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and standard measures of human capital, such as years of schooling and cognitive ability....

Several features of complex systems that deserve greater attention in economics:

1. Dispersed interaction—The economy has interaction between many dispersed, heterogeneous, agents. The action of any given agent depends upon the anticipated actions of other agents and on the aggregate state of the economy.

2. No global controller—Controls are provided by mechanisms of competition and coordination between agents. Economic actions are mediated by legal institutions, assigned roles, and shifting associations. No global entity controls interactions. Traditionally, a fictitious auctioneer has appeared in some mathematical analyses of general equilibrium models, although nobody claimed any descriptive accuracy for such models. Traditionally, many mainstream models have imposed constraints, such as requiring that budgets be balanced, and such constraints are avoided in complexity economics.

3. Cross-cutting hierarchical organization—The economy has many levels of organization and interaction. Units at any given level behaviors, actions, strategies, products typically serve as "building blocks" for constructing units at the next higher level. The overall organization is more than hierarchical, with many sorts of tangling interactions (associations, channels of communication) across levels.

4. Ongoing adaptation—Behaviors, actions, strategies, and products are revised frequently as the individual agents accumulate experience.

5. Novelty niches—Such niches are associated with new markets, new technologies, new behaviors, and new institutions. The very act of filling a niche may provide new niches. The result is ongoing novelty.

6. Out-of-equilibrium dynamics—Because new niches, new potentials, new possibilities, are continually created, the economy functions without attaining any optimum or global equilibrium. Improvements occur regularly.

Or is that too complicated for you, Foxy?
.

Naw. I had enough of the economic intellectual platitudes in college along with some pretty solid stuff including being able to address a concept. Which you have not done here.

Like Dragonlady, you dismiss it without providing any kind of rationale for why it is not true. Nor has any other liberal on this thread.

Which is why liberalism is in such low favor with those who ARE able to understand and articulate a concept and argue for or against it.

It is so simple too. Does the auto industry add to the GDP? Yes or no?
Does foreign aid add to the GDP? Yes or no?
Does the Congressional benefit package add to the GDP? Yes or no.
Does the beef industry or chicken farming or the green chili crop in New Mexico add to the GDP? Yes or no?
Does providing taxpayer money to those who don't work for it or earn it add to the GDP? Yes or no?

It isn't a matter of whether EVERY person involved in such categories adds to the GDP, but whether those within the category in general do or do not add to the GDP.

And diverting the discussion to Wal-mart or Republicans or conservatives or corruption in corporate welfare yadda yadda yadda has nothing at all do do with whether these things do or do not add to the GDP. Nor does a cut and pasted block of stuff intended to change the subject.

So simple for consevatives. So incomprehensible for liberals so far.

 

[numan]

It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.

The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.

It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.

I almost wish I had an argument with any of these statements. But alas, I must agree. Can you please call Obama and tell him to set TX adrift?

What!! Do you have to have others do everything for you?

Can't you guys show a little spunk and get-up-and-go, and do it yourself !!

Why are you trying to get us to do it for you? · ·

.

 

[numan]

Sigh. Every once in a blue moon. Govco does get something right. Alaska purchase. Good job. Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless.

Of course, they got the idea from Hitler's autobahn !!

-- Ably assisted and abetted by graft and corruption from the construction companies !!

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's shift seats here a bit.

I am presuming that my conservative friends have not chimed in here because they know the concept I have been presenting as fact is in fact not fact. Thanks guys, but I can take the flack when I'm wrong.

The concept again: Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

In fact the concept is not true because government spending is included in the GDP.

Damn. You give the liberals every chance in the world to jump on me and not one took the bait. Why? Because they apparently are unable to focus on and discuss a concept. Not even a concept that they could use to make a conservative look foolish.

So let's change the concept to something that even I can support honestly:

"Public assistance to those who do not earn or work for it will not help the economy and in fact does more harm than good."​

And THAT will in time affect the GDP negatively, but the public expenditure will increase the GDP at the time the money is spent. Which of course explains in the face of a $17 trillion deficit why the GDP seems healthy despite the most marginal of growth.

 

[Foxfyre]

P.S. I would have repped the first person to have called me on my erroneous statement of fact.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.

The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.

It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.

I almost wish I had an argument with any of these statements. But alas, I must agree. Can you please call Obama and tell him to set TX adrift?

What!! Do you have to have others do everything for you?

Can't you guys show a little spunk and get-up-and-go, and do it yourself !!

Why are you trying to get us to do it for you? · ·

.

We tried that once before. The POTUS did not take to kindly and started a war. I'm thinking this time we get some of you guys to put it in the ear of the POTUS that it's his idea and maybe TX won't get nuked in the process.

 

[numan]

"

Still won't touch the war profiteers and militarist parasites draining the blood of the American people, eh, Foxy?

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sigh. Every once in a blue moon. Govco does get something right. Alaska purchase. Good job. Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless.

Of course, they got the idea from Hitler's autobahn !!

-- Ably assisted and abetted by graft and corruption from the construction companies !!

.

Was a good idea for Germany too. Not many private corporations are willing to create a system of transportation that everyone can equally use for profit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay, let's shift seats here a bit.

I am presuming that my conservative friends have not chimed in here because they know the concept I have been presenting as fact is in fact not fact. Thanks guys, but I can take the flack when I'm wrong.

The concept again: Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

In fact the concept is not true because government spending is included in the GDP.

Damn. You give the liberals every chance in the world to jump on me and not one took the bait. Why? Because they apparently are unable to focus on and discuss a concept. Not even a concept that they could use to make a conservative look foolish.

So let's change the concept to something that even I can support honestly:

"Public assistance to those who do not earn or work for it will not help the economy and in fact does more harm than good."​

And THAT will in time affect the GDP negatively, but the public expenditure will increase the GDP at the time the money is spent. Which of course explains in the face of a $17 trillion deficit why the GDP seems healthy despite the most marginal of growth.

I provided my best response, refuting a portion of your claim, and you ignored it.

If any one portion of my argument is correct then your entire statement is false. That's the way it works.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's shift seats here a bit.

I am presuming that my conservative friends have not chimed in here because they know the concept I have been presenting as fact is in fact not fact. Thanks guys, but I can take the flack when I'm wrong.

The concept again: Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

In fact the concept is not true because government spending is included in the GDP.

Damn. You give the liberals every chance in the world to jump on me and not one took the bait. Why? Because they apparently are unable to focus on and discuss a concept. Not even a concept that they could use to make a conservative look foolish.

So let's change the concept to something that even I can support honestly:

"Public assistance to those who do not earn or work for it will not help the economy and in fact does more harm than good."​

And THAT will in time affect the GDP negatively, but the public expenditure will increase the GDP at the time the money is spent. Which of course explains in the face of a $17 trillion deficit why the GDP seems healthy despite the most marginal of growth.

I provided my best response, refuting a portion of your claim, and you ignored it.

If any one portion of my argument is correct then your entire statement is false. That's the way it works.

Sorry. I've been in and out a lot the last couple of days and must have missed it. Could you link it for me. If you did call me on my intentional error, rep will be forthcoming.

 

[RKMBrown]

So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.

The concept: public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

My rationale for that statement:

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.

Now spending is a different thing. The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have. A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.

However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.

But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall. It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.

It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing. We wouldn't even notice the cost. But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.

And everybody feels that.

Note: This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view. It is a pure statement of fact.

Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view? Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?" Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?

I am throwing the gauntlet down here. I'm going to say no liberal will even try. And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true. I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.

Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.

But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.

Sigh. Every once in a blue moon. Govco does get something right. Alaska purchase. Good job. Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment. Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.

Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money. Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.

here...

 

[Foxfyre]

So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.

The concept: public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

My rationale for that statement:

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.

Now spending is a different thing. The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have. A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.

However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.

But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall. It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.

It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing. We wouldn't even notice the cost. But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.

And everybody feels that.

Note: This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view. It is a pure statement of fact.

Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view? Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?" Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?

I am throwing the gauntlet down here. I'm going to say no liberal will even try. And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true. I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.

Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.

But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.

Sigh. Every once in a blue moon. Govco does get something right. Alaska purchase. Good job. Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment. Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.

Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money. Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.

here...

Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept. While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did. You changed the subject rather than address the statement I put out there. The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results and I kept politics strictly out of it. The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP. The concept had no right or wrong, virtue, or morality attached to it.

The rationale I provided though DOES address some of the pros and cons of government spending, which is a whole separate subject from the GDP.

I gave everybody every chance to gig me for a flawed concept. Nobody did. Everybody was too eager to focus on something less concerete, more vague, more fluid, more 'feel good' or whatever.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sigh. Every once in a blue moon. Govco does get something right. Alaska purchase. Good job. Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment. Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.

Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money. Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.

here...

Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept. While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did. You changed the subject rather than address the statement I put out there. The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results. The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.

I'll repeat the particular part that explicitly addressed your question. My answer, in its entirety was to explain the liberal perspective of why they believe you are wrong. Here you go:

Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care[, food,] and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care[, food,] and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.

There you go. If one person benefited, then turned around and became a tax payer, your statement is wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense. But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it. Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did. And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.

 

[Foxfyre]

here...

Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept. While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did. You changed the subject rather than address the statement I put out there. The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results. The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.

I'll repeat the particular part that explicitly addressed your question. My answer, in its entirety was to explain the liberal perspective of why they believe you are wrong. Here you go:

Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care[, food,] and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care[, food,] and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.

There you go. If one person benefited, then turned around and became a tax payer, your statement is wrong.

The statement had nothing to do with whether people turned the money around into a good investment. It had to do with whether public assistance increased the GDP. I provided a rationale for my argument which, by the way, DOES support the accurate statement. The flawed concept I gave everybody to discuss can't be addressed by my rationale because it is a totally incorrect statement. Which you apparently missed.