Rather than give them cash, give them an FSA or Health Savings Account. The money has to be spent on medical care, prescriptions, etc. or the card will decline.

But to say what you are saying shows either a lack of understanding of his philosphy or you have never read up on him. Otherwise your point is just dishonest.

 

No we just disagree, It is laughable to think I would be making dishonest points. I mean this isn't life or death and who has anything to gain. Besides that , honesty is a huge value for me. I have not read everything Friedman has written nor heard every speech he has made nor every so called debate. But I have read some of his research and have heard him. He is brilliant, logical and not practical to those in poverty. Or he wouldn't have said what he said in the video in the thread.

 

But I am pretty confident we will not agree. He is an economist, nothing more.

So logic is not the answer ?

 

Not always. especially when you deal with humans.

So you don't believe in freedom. Now we have got to the heart of it.

 

Th away a libertarian defines freedom, no.

All society owes those on the bottom end of the "poverty gap" is the freedom to succeed. I believe that a social safety net should be provided for those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves. However, as long as poor people continue to vote for politicians promising more generous government handouts, generational poverty will persist.

 

Socialism deprives citizens of both political and economic freedom. We cannot be truly free as long as our fellow citizens have both hands in OUR pockets and continues to use the fruits of OUR labor to buy votes of able-bodied citizens who have no desire to work.

 

Socialism and communism have not failed because of the greed of those whom they have subjugated . They have failed because their proponents will never understand human nature and will continue to tinker with systems doomed to failure. People are born with a yearning to be free, but there are a few among us who feel superior enough to deprive us of that freedom.

 

I don't advocate socialism, but anytime someone suggests helping all through government out is automatically socialism. It is the only card most can use because they either refuse to or don't want to try and understand another point of view. We are probably never going agree, I am ok with that. I am sure you will be to.

There is no evidence that throwing more money at the failed socialist programs that you advocate turns those programs into success stories. When big government programs fail, it does not matter whether the intentions of those who advocated them were good. Government involvement in healthcare has resulted in reduced quality, longer waits for services, and higher costs to consumers. As somebody already pointed out, if you want to see the results of a single payer, government monopoly on healthcare services, you need only look as far as the VA debacle.

 

There is nothing empathetic about supporting federal and state programs that fail and spread misery. I oppose sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco because they are the most regressive taxes that our government levies against its citizens. When you tax addiction, children are the first ones harmed as more of the family budget gets spent feeding the addiction and less gets spent on caring for children in the care of addicts. In contrast, most socialists that I know support such taxes because they buy into the notion that governments should be in the business of dictating individual behavior and that bureaucrats are capable of overcoming human nature through legislation and regulation.

 

Logic and empathy are not mutually exclusive concepts. When one believes oneself morally superior to those with whom they disagree and pursues a course that is illogical, they are only deluding themselves when they call their own behavior "empathetic."

 

But they can be unless a person lives in the AYN Rand world of fiction.

No we just disagree, It is laughable to think I would be making dishonest points. I mean this isn't life or death and who has anything to gain. Besides that , honesty is a huge value for me. I have not read everything Friedman has written nor heard every speech he has made nor every so called debate. But I have read some of his research and have heard him. He is brilliant, logical and not practical to those in poverty. Or he wouldn't have said what he said in the video in the thread.

 

But I am pretty confident we will not agree. He is an economist, nothing more.

 

An opinion is subjective and a fact is objective. Your statement I orginally quoted was just false. Human behavior is a part of most of Friedman's discussions. You can have opinion it does not mean it can not be objectively false.

Th away a libertarian defines freedom, no.

 

You either believe in freedom or you don't.

Not always. especially when you deal with humans.

 

This is literally insanity. You just said logic sometimes is not the answer.

But they can be unless a person lives in the AYN Rand world of fiction.

 

Ha so now you are just throwing out left wing talking points instead of having a discussion?

This is literally insanity. You just said logic sometimes is not the answer.

 

 

In your mindset I am sure it is.

In your mindset I am sure it is.

 

Repeat what you said to yourself. You said sometimes we should not use logic when making decisions. If that is the basis of your or anyones belief system we will never agree .

 

That was literally the most shocking statement I have read since the election. I never want to see you argue against the christians on the right who always quote the bible or get in a global warming debate.

 

You just opened the door and admitted you pick and choose when to use logic in discussion.

An opinion is subjective and a fact is objective. Your statement I orginally quoted was just false. Human behavior is a part of most of Friedman's discussions. You can have opinion it does not mean it can not be objectively false.

 

He is used his opinions to interpret his facts, others have interpreted them differently. We are polar opposites on the root of the problems and how to solve them. I don't believe economics is the answer to all issues.

 

My priorities, as we've discussed before is when economics gets in the way of social justices, I will not support those economic theories that some call facts. Economics is theories, not facts.

He is used his opinions to interpret his facts, others have interpreted them differently. We are polar opposites on the root of the problems and how to solve them. I don't believe economics is the answer to all issues.

 

My priorities, as we've discussed before is when economics gets in the way of social justices, I will not support those economic theories that some call facts. Economics is theories, not facts.

 

Economics is the only answer to the Economy? Feelings and emotions do not solve problems. The greatest injustice that could happen to these communities you claim to fight for is not to use reason and logic when finding the correct solution.

 

Your last line just shows ignorance on the entire discipline of Economics.

Economics is the only answer to the Economy? Feelings and emotions do not solve problems. The greatest injustice that could happen to these communities you claim to fight for is not to use reason and logic when finding the correct solution.

 

Your last line just shows ignorance on the entire discipline of Economics.

 

 

I will and have survived quite well in my ignorant world. Maybe I am wrong, but economics is a social science that uses human behaviors to support their theories. Friedman was brilliant with middle class human behavior, poverty he was way off the mark.

 

I know people worship the guy, fine, his strategy in the video will not work in poverty, That is no more of a fact than his statement. His was an opinion in the video in the opening post., But headed out, iwt was fun have a great day!