Liberalism and Limitless Welfare: An Explanation.

[PoliticalChic]

More on that psychological debilitation known as Liberalism.

Voegeli's opus reveals the central theme of Liberalism...the smug, selfish, looking-down-the -nose attitude of "I'm one who CARES!"


As Liberalism is not about solutions to poverty, but about maintaining more and more poverty, it is either a sign of mental illness, of a lack of the capacity to accurately judge reality.

In fact....those may be the same thing.


Voegeli puts it very well:


13. [Clearly,] "the answer to the question of how liberals who profess to be anguished about other people’s suffering can be so weirdly complacent regarding wasteful, misdirected, and above all ineffective government programs created to relieve that suffering—is that liberals care about helping much less than they care about caring.


Because compassion gives me a self-regarding reason to care about your suffering, it’s more important for me to do something than to accomplish something..... and I can feel the rush of my own pious reaction. There’s no need to stick around for the complex, frustrating, mundane work of making sure the program that made me feel better, just by being established and praised, has actually alleviated your suffering.



This assessment also provides an answer to the question of why liberals always want a bigger welfare state. It’s because the politics of kindness is about validating oneself rather than helping others, which means the proper response to suffering is always, “We need to do more,”...



If the point of liberalism were to alleviate suffering, as opposed to preening about one’s abhorrence of suffering and proud support for government programs designed to reduce it, liberals would get up every morning determined to reduce the proportion of that $3 trillion outlay that ought to be helping the poor but is instead being squandered in some way, including by being showered on people who aren’t poor."
Current Issue



Liberals: phony from the get-go.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If that's how you feel, why don't you start a company, make lots of money, and pay the unskilled production people huge wages? Then when you go to walmart, be sure to pay more for products that were made by over-paid Americans instead of the poor abused Chinese? The thing with liberals is they want to change everyone's behavior except their own.

And you call yourself "Bruce the thinker". Wages for workers have remained static while those in power have voted themselves enormous increases. These workers used to be consumers, but the buying power of their wages have eroded to the point where they are barely getting by. Instead of giving them raises, they got "earned income credits", which conservatives, who gave the earned income credits in the first place to avoid increasing wages, now rail against.

Conservatives engineered the current situation and now complain about the "takers".

As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there.

No finer indicia of imbecilic prattle could be found than your post.


1. ".... this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8249723138161566.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



2. "As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there."
That's because you're a moron.

"Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism.
An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists."
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2007_05_Imprimis.pdf

Walmart just symbolizes what happens when capital can easily flow to the cheapest sources of labor.

Walmart shoppers are the biggest supporters of communism.

1. The diverse group of self-identified liberals are better educated than the country as a whole, less religious, more urban, less married and wealthier. They support abortion and gay rights, are unconcerned about pornography, and rarely own guns. Edsall, “ Building Red America,” p. 18.
   1. The group frequently finds themselves in disagreement with white, working-class voters, as outlined in the Pew survey of 2007, “Trends in Political Values.” One example: two-thirds of working-class Democrats have a favorable view of Wal-Mart, while a majority of professional-class Democrats consider it to be something akin to evil incarnate. Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes 1987-2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[Discombobulated]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

In a marvelous consistency, you've created another in a long line of senseless posts, indicative of your lack of any cognitive ability.

Let's review your understanding of empathetic kindness:

1. An inability to understand the caused of poverty...
"You can avoid poverty by:

a. Graduating from high school.

b. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

c. Having a full-time job."
Three rules for staying out of poverty members.jacksonville.com


2. Liberal policy has wasted $1 trillion a year in what all can see as wasted efforts.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



3. There is neither empathy nor kindness in dunning producers $1trillion annually, while throwing away said dollars which would have provided money and training for the poor.

4. Liberals should never......never......be allowed in positions of power.

5. The solution to your particular problem is far simpler: You needs your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they can be tied in the back.
Then, off to the 'nervous hospital.'

The so called conservative position can apparently be translated like this: Eliminate all social programs, rely on the free market for everything, continue providing corporate welfare and tax shelters for the wealthy, and let nature take it's course.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's remind everyone, and inform the newer folk,

PoliticChic doesn't have a job and herself lives off the work of others.

 

[PoliticalChic]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

In a marvelous consistency, you've created another in a long line of senseless posts, indicative of your lack of any cognitive ability.

Let's review your understanding of empathetic kindness:

1. An inability to understand the caused of poverty...
"You can avoid poverty by:

a. Graduating from high school.

b. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

c. Having a full-time job."
Three rules for staying out of poverty members.jacksonville.com


2. Liberal policy has wasted $1 trillion a year in what all can see as wasted efforts.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



3. There is neither empathy nor kindness in dunning producers $1trillion annually, while throwing away said dollars which would have provided money and training for the poor.

4. Liberals should never......never......be allowed in positions of power.

5. The solution to your particular problem is far simpler: You needs your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they can be tied in the back.
Then, off to the 'nervous hospital.'

The so called conservative position can apparently be translated like this: Eliminate all social programs, rely on the free market for everything, continue providing corporate welfare and tax shelters for the wealthy, and let nature take it's course.

It is evident that when sewer rats like you cannot deal with what I actually post...and I am not shy in sharing my views, you sink to claiming some word salad of fabrication and claim it is my position.

I found your motto:
"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." Ivana Trump

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's remind everyone, and inform the newer folk,

PoliticChic doesn't have a job and herself lives off the work of others.

In short, you know nothing about me, but have given up trying to deal with the facts that I post.
A retreat due to defeat.

 

[Discombobulated]

Let's remind everyone, and inform the newer folk,

PoliticChic doesn't have a job and herself lives off the work of others.

A lady of leisure......that explains a few things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's remind everyone, and inform the newer folk,

PoliticChic doesn't have a job and herself lives off the work of others.

A lady of leisure......that explains a few things.

WHAT????

You call having to instruct, remediate, discipline, correct, and reign over idiot Liberals "leisure"????


It is a calling, an obligation....a requirement, noblesse oblige.

 

[Discombobulated]

Let's remind everyone, and inform the newer folk,

PoliticChic doesn't have a job and herself lives off the work of others.

A lady of leisure......that explains a few things.

WHAT????

You call having to instruct, remediate, discipline, correct, and reign over idiot Liberals "leisure"????


It is a calling, an obligation....a requirement, noblesse oblige.

No doubt Marie Antoinette said much the same thing before she lost her head.
Begs the question: If you lost your head would you notice?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's remind everyone, and inform the newer folk,

PoliticChic doesn't have a job and herself lives off the work of others.

A lady of leisure......that explains a few things.

WHAT????

You call having to instruct, remediate, discipline, correct, and reign over idiot Liberals "leisure"????


It is a calling, an obligation....a requirement, noblesse oblige.

No doubt Marie Antoinette said much the same thing before she lost her head.
Begs the question: If you lost your head would you notice?

It would allow her butthole to return to its normal size.

She's made this same thread about 20 times.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

In a marvelous consistency, you've created another in a long line of senseless posts, indicative of your lack of any cognitive ability.

Let's review your understanding of empathetic kindness:

1. An inability to understand the caused of poverty...
"You can avoid poverty by:

a. Graduating from high school.

b. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

c. Having a full-time job."
Three rules for staying out of poverty members.jacksonville.com


2. Liberal policy has wasted $1 trillion a year in what all can see as wasted efforts.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



3. There is neither empathy nor kindness in dunning producers $1trillion annually, while throwing away said dollars which would have provided money and training for the poor.

4. Liberals should never......never......be allowed in positions of power.

5. The solution to your particular problem is far simpler: You needs your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they can be tied in the back.
Then, off to the 'nervous hospital.'

The so called conservative position can apparently be translated like this: Eliminate all social programs, rely on the free market for everything, continue providing corporate welfare and tax shelters for the wealthy, and let nature take it's course.

Correct.

Social programs are a response to, not the cause of, poverty, where simply 'getting rid' of social programs won't solve the problem of poverty, a problem the 'free market' is woefully inadequate to address.

 

[PoliticalChic]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

In a marvelous consistency, you've created another in a long line of senseless posts, indicative of your lack of any cognitive ability.

Let's review your understanding of empathetic kindness:

1. An inability to understand the caused of poverty...
"You can avoid poverty by:

a. Graduating from high school.

b. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

c. Having a full-time job."
Three rules for staying out of poverty members.jacksonville.com


2. Liberal policy has wasted $1 trillion a year in what all can see as wasted efforts.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



3. There is neither empathy nor kindness in dunning producers $1trillion annually, while throwing away said dollars which would have provided money and training for the poor.

4. Liberals should never......never......be allowed in positions of power.

5. The solution to your particular problem is far simpler: You needs your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they can be tied in the back.
Then, off to the 'nervous hospital.'

The so called conservative position can apparently be translated like this: Eliminate all social programs, rely on the free market for everything, continue providing corporate welfare and tax shelters for the wealthy, and let nature take it's course.

Correct.

Social programs are a response to, not the cause of, poverty, where simply 'getting rid' of social programs won't solve the problem of poverty, a problem the 'free market' is woefully inadequate to address.

Don't you ever....ever....tire of being wrong???
What are you....a Liberal????
Oh...right...


OK....let me rip you up one more time. C_Chamber_Pot...


1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



Get it, you moron???
Welfare gave rise to exactly what caused poverty in the first place.


Now, go hide under your desk.

 

[Discombobulated]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

In a marvelous consistency, you've created another in a long line of senseless posts, indicative of your lack of any cognitive ability.

Let's review your understanding of empathetic kindness:

1. An inability to understand the caused of poverty...
"You can avoid poverty by:

a. Graduating from high school.

b. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

c. Having a full-time job."
Three rules for staying out of poverty members.jacksonville.com


2. Liberal policy has wasted $1 trillion a year in what all can see as wasted efforts.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



3. There is neither empathy nor kindness in dunning producers $1trillion annually, while throwing away said dollars which would have provided money and training for the poor.

4. Liberals should never......never......be allowed in positions of power.

5. The solution to your particular problem is far simpler: You needs your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they can be tied in the back.
Then, off to the 'nervous hospital.'

The so called conservative position can apparently be translated like this: Eliminate all social programs, rely on the free market for everything, continue providing corporate welfare and tax shelters for the wealthy, and let nature take it's course.

Correct.

Social programs are a response to, not the cause of, poverty, where simply 'getting rid' of social programs won't solve the problem of poverty, a problem the 'free market' is woefully inadequate to address.

So called conservatives are a bunch of lying hypocrites; actually doing away with things like welfare and food stamps is the last thing they really want to do. The political backlash would destroy them and they know it. Not hard to imagine the reaction if they start broadcasting stuff like this again.

 

[Brucethethinker]

Seriously now, if liberal programs were going to at least help eliminate poverty, wouldn't they have done it yet? The more we spend on poverty, the worse it gets. It's like giving a man a fish. Even if a man knows how to fish, if you give him a fish every day, after awhile he'll forget where his fishing equipment is, and eventually he'll forget how to fish. Then he has to be grateful for the fish you give him, and he votes for the demonrats. And those of us who oppose giving him all that fish are heartless.

 

[Brucethethinker]

So called conservatives are a bunch of lying hypocrites; actually doing away with things like welfare and food stamps is the last thing they really want to do. The political backlash would destroy them and they know it. Not hard to imagine the reaction if they start broadcasting stuff like this again.

There is NO hunger in America today. Actually, I think we should give food stamps to anyone who asks for them. Why not? It would end all the stupid whining about "hunger". There would be no black market on food stamps anymore. The program could be expanded to allow buying at McDonalds and such, maybe even all restaurants. Why not? It would make us all equal. And seriously, as easy as it is for farmers to produce food, no one should need to worry about having food. How popular would that be for the republicans to do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seriously now, if liberal programs were going to at least help eliminate poverty, wouldn't they have done it yet? The more we spend on poverty, the worse it gets. It's like giving a man a fish. Even if a man knows how to fish, if you give him a fish every day, after awhile he'll forget where his fishing equipment is, and eventually he'll forget how to fish. Then he has to be grateful for the fish you give him, and he votes for the demonrats. And those of us who oppose giving him all that fish are heartless.

Isn't a poor person lifted above the poverty line by the assistance he receives from the government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seriously now, if liberal programs were going to at least help eliminate poverty, wouldn't they have done it yet? The more we spend on poverty, the worse it gets. It's like giving a man a fish. Even if a man knows how to fish, if you give him a fish every day, after awhile he'll forget where his fishing equipment is, and eventually he'll forget how to fish. Then he has to be grateful for the fish you give him, and he votes for the demonrats. And those of us who oppose giving him all that fish are heartless.

If it's poverty programs that keep people poor, why hasn't poverty disappeared in countries that don't have poverty programs?

eh?

 

[Brucethethinker]

If it's poverty programs that keep people poor, why hasn't poverty disappeared in countries that don't have poverty programs?

eh?

There are no countries that don't have poverty programs.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Freemason9]

Congratulations, Eagle and PC. Your seemingly endless pool of free time has successfully sucked all oxygen from this conversation. I would suggest that some of your right wing windbags on USMB find useful employment somewhere to clear their heads.