How do leftists justify their culture of dependency?

[American4Americ]

There is a difference between "welfare" and the caustic culture of dependency that liberals actively seek to foster. The problem with the culture of dependency, of course, is that it fosters a continuous cycle of failure hurting the very people it is designed to protect. This because it causes them to create excuses for themselves, as opposed to actually working, or benefiting society in any way. This has the effect of not only hurting them, but destroying who they are. The eventual result of this culture, then, is a parasite. A leech upon society that no one can help anymore. This is what conservatives seek to prevent.

 

[B. Kidd]

Most democrats these days were weaned on a small teat and raised by 'helicopter moms'; thus they thirst for ultra-dependency, central planning, and growing government by leaps and bounds.

 

[chikenwing]

Most don't think it exists.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

 

[Avatar4321]

power and money

 

[B. Kidd]

power and money

You left out the CONTROL word........

 

[Avatar4321]

power and money

You left out the CONTROL word........

I was including it in power, but you are right, it is separate from power.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How do leftists justify their culture of dependency?

That's easy, it's not true, nor would we want it if it was.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Most democrats these days were weaned on a small teat and raised by 'helicopter moms'; thus they thirst for ultra-dependency, central planning, and growing government by leaps and bounds.

And this is why you lost the Presidency, twice. Lack of reality.

 

[Rozman]

They call it their reelection strategy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

Anyone can be evil. And highly concentrated wealth is dangerous. When it gets too concentrated, heads start to roll, literally.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

"....They...." I doubt any of you morons personally know a real liberal. You're too busy shouting inside your own echo chamber.

I've never taken a dime in federal assistance, never had a nanny, but I also realize that most people have never owned businesses, took risks, lost tons of money, made tons of money, and trotted globally to do so on four continents, as I have. They simply want a good job that gives them some security. But that is being taken away from them in a power grab unlike we have seen since the Vanderbilts, Goulds, Rockefellers et al. one hundred years ago.

You idiots won't be happy until we have the return of sweat shops and factories with no windows and 12-year-olds running the machinery.

 

[The Rabbi]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

Anyone can be evil. And highly concentrated wealth is dangerous. When it gets too concentrated, heads start to roll, literally.

Who controls virtually all the wealth in this country? Right, the federal gov't. So you were saying?

 

[J.E.D]

troll thread. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[occupied]

I do not agree with this theory but just for laughs the same can be said about corporate subsidies and tax cuts for the rich, how do conservatives justify that? It seems they only get angry about the poor getting help from the government and yet see little wrong with the banking industry, for instance, getting massive handouts and tailor made laws to protect them from their own incredibly harmful and short-sighted failures.

Treat all handouts as evil or be expect to be accused of being plutocrats or their lackeys.

As to the question at hand, it can also be argued that American businesses that have a lot of low wage employees also count on handouts to working people as a kind of subsidy for their lowball pay and benefit packages. What would happen to Walmart, for instance, if food stamp benefits were cut off? Since they are our largest retailer what is the effect of several hundred billion dollars disappearing out of their revenue every year? What would happen to their employees who can no longer afford to work there and can no longer feed their families? No, food stamps are every bit as much corporate welfare as they are for despised lazy poor people who work their asses off.

Only an utter cad would contend old people do not need or deserve SS and Medicare so we will move on to the relatively small group who fit the stereotype of an idle "parasite".

Every country has an element within their population who for whatever reason are unemployable, no way to legislate them away, even communist countries had a problem with the "lumpinprole" what the hell do you do with them? It seems the most humane thing to do is feed them to keep them from stealing, lock them up when they do and try to educate their offspring to be better but one thing you never do is ignore them or abandon them to hunger or they will eat the rest of us alive. Consider it revolution insurance.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

Anyone can be evil. And highly concentrated wealth is dangerous. When it gets too concentrated, heads start to roll, literally.

Another word for that is monopoly. And a great example of this is how the stupid morons who don't get it will be just as plagued with an internet taken hostage by Verizon and Comcast as we are.

 

[B. Kidd]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

Anyone can be evil. And highly concentrated wealth is dangerous. When it gets too concentrated, heads start to roll, literally.

Now that you mention it, I do wonder how many ultra-wealthy liberals were hiding their money at Credit Suisse to avoid paying U.S. taxes........a list that we will never see!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

power and money

You left out the CONTROL word........

I was including it in power, but you are right, it is separate from power.

No, it is not. (shaking head) If you have absolute power then you can bet you're also totally in control.

What do you think buys power? Duh. $$$$$$

No wonder the GOP got the bags over your head so easily. You really can't understand fairly simple concepts.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

Anyone can be evil. And highly concentrated wealth is dangerous. When it gets too concentrated, heads start to roll, literally.

Now that you mention it, I do wonder how many ultra-wealthy liberals were hiding their money at Credit Suisse to avoid paying U.S. taxes........a list that we will never see!

Wealthy people generally try hard not to pay taxes. That's a good way to get rich if you can get away with it, and most can.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

they 'justify' it by pointing to the 'eeeeevil rich'.....

they push nannyism to ensnare voters....poverty becomes a trap when there is no incentive to work...

Anyone can be evil. And highly concentrated wealth is dangerous. When it gets too concentrated, heads start to roll, literally.

Who controls virtually all the wealth in this country? Right, the federal gov't. So you were saying?

You are either joking, or very stupid.