Liberalism's Fatal Flaw

[Pete7469]

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme. Still, if you fail forking over about 40 % of your earned income the government will place you firmly behind bars.

 

[Mac1958]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

Yeah, government's role is in such a huge decline, better watch out for those evil republicans / corporations or whatever else nonsense you believe in:

Could it be that the correct explanation is that the regressive parasites here have bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to this issue. The gov pays them by stealing money from others and they vote for the gov. Absolutely immoral individuals.

We of course know the results of this experiment - massively declined economy.

"Parasites" is another good example.

For some reason, I can't get across the difference between message and messaging.
.

 

[Contumacious]

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

HUH

WTF

When did he say that?

Your logical fallacy is strawman.

 

[Pete7469]

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

Dude it was a government law. I believe it would be enough to repeal that law...For example, this law: Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the lack of IQ.

I agree with reductions in military spending. But it's absolutely dishonest to compare the defense budgets in absolute amounts, especially with countries that have mandatory military service. This is laughably stupid. Additionally, it's a tip of the iceberg anyway, so I don't understand your need to even bring it up. Other than as an attempt to score some stupid regressive points, of course.

Really? So if slavery had been kept legal, we'd be fine? and beating the slaves for not working hard enough? Bring that back too?

What about child labor? What about pollution? What about dangerous workplace conditions?

Could you stop straw-manning. I never said any of those things. Yes, obviously slavery should be illegal (even if liberal regressives totally are for owning the earning's of other people). I was just pointing out that slavery was in fact made possible by a law.

No need to bring more liberal mythology nonsense into this. No one would have their kids working today, with or without laws. Don't be an idiot and try taking credit for something you or your regressive ideology played absolutely no part in. Dangerous workplace conditions are a choice and exist to this day. Regardless of what your regressive idols tell you. You can't legislate reality out of existence.

Okay so finally you agree that government is necessary to rein in business.

Now that we've established I'm right about that, and you were originally wrong, it's just a debate over how much...

WTF? Where did you pull that from? Ah, whatever, there is no talking logic or reading comprehension into you.

You are an idiot liberal who is just waiting for that "gotcha" moment, when someone infinitely smarter than you just might have said something not quite correct. That's when you strike, as if that contributed to anything, even though you have not had a single moment of mental clarity in all your life. It's pathetic.

So many exchanges like this need to seen nationally. Libturds get so completely ridiculed and marginalized on USMB that it should be widely published.

 

[Norman]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

Yeah, government's role is in such a huge decline, better watch out for those evil republicans / corporations or whatever else nonsense you believe in:

Could it be that the correct explanation is that the regressive parasites here have bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to this issue. The gov pays them by stealing money from others and they vote for the gov. Absolutely immoral individuals.

We of course know the results of this experiment - massively declined economy.

"Parasites" is another good example.

For some reason, I can't get across the difference between message and messaging.
.

Of course you can't. You would place feelz over realz wouldn't you? Tell me something new.

It's a fact that the definition of "parasite" perfectly describes the relationship between the leftist moochers and the people who actually productively work for a living. I didn't invent the dictionary, don't blame me. Wanna hear something else not so nice? If you don't agree with paying for these people, they will throw your ass in jail.

Parasite:
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

 

[Mac1958]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

Yeah, government's role is in such a huge decline, better watch out for those evil republicans / corporations or whatever else nonsense you believe in:

Could it be that the correct explanation is that the regressive parasites here have bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to this issue. The gov pays them by stealing money from others and they vote for the gov. Absolutely immoral individuals.

We of course know the results of this experiment - massively declined economy.

"Parasites" is another good example.

For some reason, I can't get across the difference between message and messaging.
.

Of course you can't. You would place feelz over realz wouldn't you? Tell me something new.

It's a fact that the definition of "parasite" perfectly describes the relationship between the leftist moochers and the people who actually productively work for a living. I didn't invent the dictionary, don't blame me.

Parasite:
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Somehow, you're still not getting it.

Most people understand that the way we communicate plays a role in the message we are communicating. Whether we like it or not.

If you think that hyperbole and bluster and name-calling and insults are an effective way to influence opinion, great, have at it.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

HUH

WTF

When did he say that?

Your logical fallacy is strawman.

When he said this:

"FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line."

Assuming that he opposes Fascism, he thus opposes the necessity of government laws to keep the private sector from using slaves as its source of labor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

Yeah, government's role is in such a huge decline, better watch out for those evil republicans / corporations or whatever else nonsense you believe in:

Could it be that the correct explanation is that the regressive parasites here have bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to this issue. The gov pays them by stealing money from others and they vote for the gov. Absolutely immoral individuals.

We of course know the results of this experiment - massively declined economy.

"Parasites" is another good example.

For some reason, I can't get across the difference between message and messaging.
.

Of course you can't. You would place feelz over realz wouldn't you? Tell me something new.

It's a fact that the definition of "parasite" perfectly describes the relationship between the leftist moochers and the people who actually productively work for a living. I didn't invent the dictionary, don't blame me. Wanna hear something else not so nice? If you don't agree with paying for these people, they will throw your ass in jail.

Parasite:
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Socialists want to narrow the gap between rich and poor, including the gap between low income labor and the rich.

Conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor as far as they can get away with.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some people just desire that even the least person have enough, since enough exists. Abject suffering is not necessary, so allowing it is not brotherhood.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some people just desire that even the least person have enough, since enough exists. Abject suffering is not necessary, so allowing it is not brotherhood.

"Some people just desire that even the least person have enough,...."

You're not suggesting that the welfare industry is either effective or efficient in doing that......

....are you???


Or, that that is even the intention of the system????

 

[there4eyeM]

Some people just desire that even the least person have enough, since enough exists. Abject suffering is not necessary, so allowing it is not brotherhood.

"Some people just desire that even the least person have enough,...."

You're not suggesting that the welfare industry is either effective or efficient in doing that......

....are you???


Or, that that is even the intention of the system????

Now that you mention it, no, that isn't what is stated. The intent would rather be to say that being human to fellow humans is normal and necessary and the means of doing it must be found.

 

[PoliticalChic]

An earlier post commented on the use of political privilege to use government to increase one's wealth.....

Any economic inequality is hardly the business of government....either to help or for charity.


10. "The real threat to opportunity in America is increasing political inequality.

In a land of opportunity, an individual should succeed or fail on the basis of merit, not political privilege. You deserve what you earn  —  no more, no less.

Today, however, some people are being stopped from rising by merit, and others are securing unearned wealth through political privilege. But the real source of this problem is that we have granted the government an incredible amount of arbitrary power: to intervene in our affairs, to pick winners and losers, to put roadblocks in the way of success, to hand out wealth and other special favors to whatever pressure group can present itself as the face of “the public good.” Some of these injustices do increase economic inequality, but it isn’t the inequality that should bother us  —  it’s the injustices.

• Cronyism  —  whether in the form of bailouts, subsidies, government-granted monopolies, or other special favors  —  benefits some businesses at the expense of competitors and buyers.
• Occupational licensing laws in fields as varied as hair-braiding and interior decorating protect incumbents from competitors by arbitrarily preventing individuals from freely entering into those fields.
• The minimum wage raises some people’s incomes at the expense of employers and customers as well as other low-skilled workers, who are priced out of the labor market and thrown onto the unemployment rolls.
• The welfare state openly deprives some people of their earned rewards in order to give other people rewards they haven’t earned." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute



This violation is the fatal flaw in Liberalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some people just desire that even the least person have enough, since enough exists. Abject suffering is not necessary, so allowing it is not brotherhood.

"Some people just desire that even the least person have enough,...."

You're not suggesting that the welfare industry is either effective or efficient in doing that......

....are you???


Or, that that is even the intention of the system????

Now that you mention it, no, that isn't what is stated. The intent would rather be to say that being human to fellow humans is normal and necessary and the means of doing it must be found.

Americans have always done so....and without the prodding by government.

One example:

1. “[Of President Grover Cleveland's 584 vetoes, that of the "Texas Seed Bill" (February 16, 1887) may be the most famous. Members of Congress wanted to help suffering farmers in the American West, but Cleveland rejected their bill, citing the limited mission of the general government and arguing that private charity and already-existing government programs should furnish the necessary aid.]


To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.” Veto of the Texas Seed Bill


2. Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people. Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland

 

[Windship]

Same old ignorant garbage. Ive been away a while and I see that ignorance and the inability to reason has survived and is well as is the rights shills.
The truth of the matter is, that for a country to survive and grow for the country as a whole, the country needs a balance. Any society that has broken this balance has failed. Your option from having government is to let the corporations run your life? And if you want to bring up propaganda, how is it that the right can turn working ppl away from unions when everything that working ppl have today was brought by unions and ppl IN the unions. These ppl fought and sometimes dies to keep the unions because they knew how thing were. Before unions,the corporations paid nothing, worked long hours and if you got hurt because of unsafe working conditions, you got nothing.

 

[there4eyeM]

Charities are currently meeting the need in the U.S., then?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Same old ignorant garbage. Ive been away a while and I see that ignorance and the inability to reason has survived and is well as is the rights shills.
The truth of the matter is, that for a country to survive and grow for the country as a whole, the country needs a balance. Any society that has broken this balance has failed. Your option from having government is to let the corporations run your life? And if you want to bring up propaganda, how is it that the right can turn working ppl away from unions when everything that working ppl have today was brought by unions and ppl IN the unions.

Isn't it funny how 'garbage' seems to follow where ever you go.....


Perhaps you're looking in the wrong direction to see its source.

 

[Windship]

Garbage=fact...I can live with that
Perhaps you should take a course on economics?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Charities are currently meeting the need in the U.S., then?

1. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..



2. Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, and Hoover, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.

Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.

Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.


3. Economist Jim Powell, in “FDR’s Folly,” notes that a disproportionate amount of FDR’s relief and public works spending “went not to the poorest states such as the South, but to western states were people were better off , apparently because there were ‘swing’ states which could yield FDR more votes in the next election.”

That basis for charity and welfare continues to this day!


Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Garbage=fact...I can live with that
Perhaps you should take a course on economics?

This thread is a lesson in economics.

You should drop the second half of your avi.

 

[Jack4jill]

1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism.
This is why it remains the most dynamic religion of our age.

Most important is to bear in mind that nothing could be further from the attitudes and values under which America was created, than that very ideology, Modern Liberalism.

Classical liberalism, the views if the Founders, what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.


2. "The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins


3. To see the roots of 'Liberalism," and its commections to material equality, know this:
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager




4. "The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality. Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it.

The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

..... the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Yet, there are still enough gullible voters who imagine that things will only be taken away from others....and given to them.
They're called Liberals.

The fatal flaw of liberalism is most, like the OP, are too stupid to understand it.

They were never taught to respect it, to defend it, or why it is the basis of the nation, which they would happily destroy trying to undo what holds it together, liberalism.