To actually be calling themselves research (sans quotation) they should probably base more of their arguments on empirical facts instead of conjecture and fantasy (such as the drugs comment). One more convenient fact that they fail to address is that many economic studies have concluded that direct payments to poor people (whether food stamps or cash aid as you suggest) is the best form of economic stimulus that the government can provide. Just this week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report that productivity has increased beyond where it was before the recession. However, demand is still shitty, and that is why the economy is not picking up. The only way to increase demand and get people buying is to make sure we have more access to money, whether by direct payments to poor people, easing access to credit markets (which is still a giant problem 4 years on), or some sort of (effective) debt reduction program. Is it ideal that the government should have to deal with these problems? No. But we know from the Hoover administration, and the current mess in Europe, that there's no such thing as shrinking yourself out of a depression. Also, nice point #6. Money is fungible; we all know that. Everyone takes some sort of government aid, but for some reason only poor people have to deal with this bullshit. Tonight I'm going to a wedding. My cousin is marrying into a family who have made millions owning trailer parks and shitty apartment buildings, which are all supported by section 8 and welfare and food stamps. And the dad is a Tea Bagger! I find that irony so hilarious, but I'm just using that as an example. We all rely on some form of government help, from schools to roads to water distribution. Should we get out taps turned off until we can be certified marijuana free?It's a research arm of the republican party.
Should read: It's a "research" arm of the republican party.
Aside from that, Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain, and helped to usher in their subsequent "prosperity" which was languishing under government "nationalized" industrial ownership. Postal Roads were a founding "constitutional" charge for the Federal government. Sure, we use roads, but is the Federal Government (us) really responsible for perpetrating "generational dependence" on federal government? I tend to hold the quote of John David Rockefeller, "Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient become independent of it"! (Unless you are handicapped for some physical or mental reason). We prolong government dependency with the way many federal and state programs are structured. Nobody is saying, "throw them out on their ear"; just lend support intelligently and in the name of good, responsible "stewardship" and not reckless spending intended to promote political careers (no matter what the political tag).