In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.
such as?

1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations
over other considerations

This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
you have that it is a wrong assumption?

First the burden of proof is on those who claim a specific behaviour,
not those who disclaim it.

True. But you should be able to defend your own assertions made
in an effort to disclaim an assertion.



Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least not
all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for parties who
advocate welfare cuts.

The arguement doesn't preclude some voters doing so, but it does
depend on the *majority* doing so more often than not.

Look at how the GOP politicians have been vilified for suggesting
smaller increases.


2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

I don't think it assumes that at all.

Yes it does. Even if 1. were true, if the politicians don't implement
the welfare rises they promised earlier, it has no effect.

Entitlements have been going up and up and up in the USA. Cripes, any
so-called cuts have actually been increases smaller than the gimme crowd
wanted.


In reality, the politicians tend
to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.

This is not true here .

Why do you think "entitlements" in the USA have been going up every year?



3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
rising the taxes

I don't see where this assumption is present,

If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so no
problem.

ouch. Of course there is a problem. There isn't an inexhaustable amount
of taxable income. duh


but even it it was
present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.

Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
generations and shows no sign of caving in.

"generations"? They had a great economy through the two world wars did they?

You need to think on a longer scale. No one is suggesting that a collaspe
will happen in just a few years.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)