This is why we are screwed on both left and right.  Too many people throwing out ideas and research and theories and facts and ideas out of hand because of where they come from, versus a carefully considered, thoughtful analysis.  The right says everything Obama does is wrong, even though a large percentage of his proposals have been essentially Bush-lite or GOP ideas, and the left thinks everything that a GOP-er suggests is equally ludicrous. 

Add this to the fact that it's essentially corporations and the huge donors that pretty much make all the policy on both sides, and we're bascially screwed.

I think it is one thing to make this argument to defend an individual who doesn't have a clear conflict of interest, or even one that has a moderate conflict of interest, but when you have an organization that is primarily to promote rapid government expansion it is foolish to blindly trust what they say. 

That is why I stick with policy analysis centers that are run by analysts that have a no-BS agenda that hate Dems and Republicans equally.

My institute of choice is: www.cato.org - they've lambasted both parties equally.

lol what a joke. So do you have a source or did you pull those numbers out of your ass?

Foster care is state-run too. If we want to be so cruel about it, the only way to efficiently stop welfare babies is with mandatory abortions. Since no-one is willing to do that, welfare benefits for children is the most humane way to do it

Do you know what we did when we didn't have legal abortions nor welfare benefits?

It was called 'adoption'. In the US, over 10% of all children were given away by poor parents and given to those that could not have kids or wanted more.

Maybe we need to consider revising our laws and encouraging adoption as a middle path - no required abortions, less welfare. We've regulated adoption to make it nearly impossible for those that want it.

I was under the assumption that adoption rates were far lower than would be necessary to alleviate the problem all on its own

Adoption would certainly be yet more efficient, but for whatever reason i was under the assumption that the will isn't there

Maybe you should take your economics from a... economic class and not a political party.

ECO 101: Government spending is used to stimulate the economy. The Fed exists for a reason, it was created when congress wanted to see our country succeed, not fail for political points.

any kind of spending stimulates the economy,money goes so service takes place.its common sense

the problem is that why should government funds be used to stimulate people who work less and less and aren't able to keep their finances in shape

A solid economics class will point out that, while Keynesian stimulus has been tried in dozens of economic downturns, there is only one data-point (World War II) which demonstrates it working; and even then it could be argued that other factors (the building of a large, technologically advanced private manufacturing sector) lead to the economic recovery.

As I explained earlier, the multiplier effects associated with stimulus spending fail to account for the negative mutiplier effects of taxation and build up government debt.