Blue Dogs
Why do self-described fiscal conservatives get in a tizzy over the cost of programs that help their constituents live, but not over the cost of bombing foreigners?
...looks like I didn't update the comic right last night. All should be well now.
posted by Matt Bors at
2:00 AM
2 Comments:
YES. Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how limitless funds seem to be when it comes to destruction.
Also, this attitude would have been nice instead of the "ZOMGifwedon'tgiveallthismoneyawaytobigbanksetc.RIGHTNOWtheskywillfall!!" that we got when they were voting on the bailout...
There is one good reason because fiscal conservatives are against "programs that help their constituents live" and not to "programs bombing foreigners". Bombing foreigner is an enterprise that it is far from the reach of private initiative. So, public money is needed to do that. Bombing foreigners, moreover, it is a burst for economy (i.e. for the pockets of some guys you know). However, when bombing foreigners could be a matter of free enterprise, military spending will be severely cut.
In the meantime, social programs offered by government or government-sponsored associations compete in the offering of "services" with private firms. If people get free health care or free education, they will not pay for normal health care or normal education (they would only pay for very good health care or very good education, and if they have the money). So, it's best to let all these issues to the private initiative. Of course, there are homeless people, but homeless people are also a business opportunity, and the meddling of the public sector will be uncalled even for them.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home