[conservatism_IS_compassion]

most of it goes into big publicly owned pension accounts wich use it to invest and pay old people pension. The government is thus not free to use the oil revenues for wathewer purpose they see fit, and have to draw much of their revenues from peoples taxes, wich are I beliewe rather uncommon in many oil countries.

I do think that funding a retirees' pension might be a prudent use of the money - but then, there is much to be said for the idea that that is elitist, and that if the money is for the people then the people are for the money - it's not up to you or me to decide whether the money is more needed for immediate needs or for long-term retirement benefits.

As the saying goes, "You get what you pay for." And for that reason it is exceedingly difficult to construct a welfare system which doesn't buy more poverty. America went too far in that direction with its "Great Society" program; even Reagan was not able completely to undo that Johnson Administration boondoggle. The Republican Congress was finally able to convince even President Clinton to reduce the provisions for welfare by requiring limits on the time the payments are made to a given person.

It was a revelation to some of the people on welfare, that they were supposed to exert themselves and earn their own keep! I don't know the details, but cutting the program reportedly produced far less distress than the socialists believed, and actually made some of them happier for having earned their own money.

[Leifur]

My english is limited so I am not sure I fully understand you. But of course you are correct, people should be responsible for what they do with their own money, nobody else should dictate that. I am particularly not sure what you mean by elitist, in this contest either.

But to trooly look at those money as the individuals own money the national oil company should be split in as many shares as Iraqis are today and distribute them, one share to each, otherwise it is the money of the society, for better and worse, and then we allways have to wonder what is better than something else, and consider the socialogical and political situation in different countries.

F.e. would changing Icelandic society overnight into a libertarian/conservative society would newer work or even be considered, but doing it little by little, maybe with things like mentioned here would be much more possible to sell to the public:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282392/posts

In same way changing the Iraqi society will take time, and it should mostly be about making them ready for the day the oil runs out (or is replaced or tumbles in worth), and if they get used to get a monthly check from the government oil fund that can cover all their daily needs they will become used to it and increasingly decide not to bother to work, or even prepare for the future (as the money flows steadily) with pension investment. By distributing the money in this way will result in many ways similarly as how easy it is to live on welfare in Europe.

It is of course very difficult to construct a system that does not breed dependency and powerty, I doupt it is possible in fact, but the more individualistic and right winged the aproach is, the better.

Ps. Could you tell me how to let the text be leaning like you did with the quote?