So we shoul dhae a super small government, right?
Because the invisible hand will help the poor people.
Right?
Like, how about, the government only enforces our "human rights" (which are: Free Speech, Guns for everyone, Free religion and the right to arrest people drinking a beer on the streets)...
And then let the poor people die in the cold snow in New York City on December 24th, 2010, because the Invisible Hand only smacks people who deserve it.
These children are poor because they spend all their time partying and smoking cigarettes, and never are studying, so that is why they are poor.
What a load of royal sanctimonious doo doo!
First - no one brought up any of this nonsense but you. You're ascribing that silliness to people here *as if* that's what they said, believe, whatever.
Second - I doubt you have the FIRST CLUE
why those children are poor.
I bet you don't even know who those children are. I bet you downloaded some stock photo off the web - probably searched "poverty" or "starvation" or something like that to find what you thought was the perfect picture to serve up that ludicrous statement.
Third - since you so self-righteously brought that photo into play (and
thank you btw for correcting us that they aren't that way because they spent all their time partying, smoking cigarettes, and not studying [not studying???] - we would've never guessed...), and since you apparently DO know how they got that way, enlighten us - please. How *did* those people get that way -
in particular, since the context is the United States' debt ceiling - enlighten us how those people's plight is remotely topical to this subject here - we'd sure like to know because that photo is quite provocative.
Point - if you have one (a point that is), and it's relevant to this topic, make it. Put together an argument and back it up with reasonable warrant - otherwise spare us the irrelevant, off-topic sanctimony.
I'll even help you a bit - the comments you made were in response to this:
Originally Posted by
KarateCowboy
Congress has shown they cannot be trusted with the money we have given them. No one here has been able to elucidate why they should be trusted with more.
If it's your point the US congress should be trusted with more money lest we all turn out like those people in your stock photo above, demonstrate how trusting congress with more money will prevent such situations. You might start with identifying those people in your stock photo, their country (I'm just guessing here, but it's probably
not the US), and outlining for us how the 'invisible hand' failed them, how a large government would
not have failed them.
In other words, rather than meandering emotional panderings that put words into people's mouths they didn't say, "
elucidate why they [congress] should be trusted with more [money]."