causation
the argument for a strong social safety net seems to be that the most prosperous countries have them. it's almost as if the thinking is that one could install a strong social safety net in a poor country and *poof* it will become a prosperous country. as opposed to the other way around. ie prosperous countries have expensive social safety nets because they can afford them. if it didn't work this way then communism would be the government of choice. whereas in reality communism kinda stinks when it comes to the prosperity department. ideally, we want the minimal social safety net that keeps people from turning to crime and stealing their neighbor's stuff. i think the problem here is that i've already made the mental shift to post peak oil thinking. ie we're not a rich planet anymore. we've spent the earth's wealth making lots and lots of people. we can't keep borrowing money from the future to finance the past's lifestyle. cause the future doesn't have any money to lend. we need to cut back the size of our safety net. timmer for president of a much smaller government.