The Lie That Obama Keeps Repeating

[NYcarbineer]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

There are 46 million Americans living with no home, no heat, no food?

 

[rightwinger]

Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" which was actually a War on the Black male head of household for 50 years and what do we have to show for it?

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

We were the worlds Number 1 superpower, you got something better than #1, I'm all ears

After all these years we haven't managed to end war. It shows that all of our military spending has been wasted

 

[rightwinger]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

Doesn't a program like Medicaid make the poor less poor?

Medicaid shouldn't be cut. It should be ended. Is noe volutionary benefit to helping the poor and injured or sick survive. Sooner they die the better for the rest.

 

[Camp]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

So let's continue doing what we know does not work. Are you INSANE?

Are you the kind of American that concludes that anyone who knows and believes welfare is a failure, must want the poor to die?

We must admit welfare as it is done today, is a terrible failure. How about we try something else?

We don't have to view welfare as a terrible failure. That is an opinion. Some think that in spite of the problems and difficulties created by today's system the overall benefits and good it does outweighs the negative that it creates. It is all a question of priorities.
Identifying problems is easy. Solutions to solve the problems may be extremely difficult. Trying something else is always a great idea as long as the problem isn't exasperated or cause the creation of new and possibly more serious problems.
When dealing with situations that might cause great harm, big theories and experiments can be very dangerous and harmful.
So what is your proposed solution?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

Doesn't a program like Medicaid make the poor less poor?

Medicaid shouldn't be cut. It should be ended. Is noe volutionary benefit to helping the poor and injured or sick survive. Sooner they die the better for the rest.

While I'm sure that was witty and clever, since I can't view embedded mm here if you want me to respond to it you'll have to describe it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?A or B?

Actually, our welfare system does both

We want to provide a safety net of food, shelter and healthcare
We also want to provide educational opportunities, jobs programs and incentives for businesses who provide jobs in impoverished areas

How nice! You've returned for remedial education!

And, here it is:

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
      Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession: “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?

The conservative philosophy is that if you force the poor to experience poverty to its fullest degree, with no alleviation whatsoever from the government or anyone else,

that the suffering will cause the poor to magically choose to stop being poor.

(They like to cite Africa as the best example of how this approach has remarkable success)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" which was actually a War on the Black male head of household for 50 years and what do we have to show for it?

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

We were the worlds Number 1 superpower, you got something better than #1, I'm all ears

After all these years we haven't managed to end war. It shows that all of our military spending has been wasted

Even for you, this is truly a stupid post.

 

[Camp]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

Are you that uninformed to actually believe their are no homeless people, no one suffering in the winter from the lack of heat or hungry? Of course your answer will be that no one has to live under those conditions, but you would have to make your own definition of what the meaning of "has to live" means.

 

[Auld Phart]

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.

give him a break.

Looking at his picture, Spanky can't be over 7 or 8 years old.

 

[NYcarbineer]

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?A or B?

Actually, our welfare system does both

We want to provide a safety net of food, shelter and healthcare
We also want to provide educational opportunities, jobs programs and incentives for businesses who provide jobs in impoverished areas

How nice! You've returned for remedial education!

And, here it is:

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
      Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession: “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

Why then do 'poor' people line up by the hundreds to try to get a few jobs at, for example, a Walmart?

 

[rightwinger]

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.

On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?

To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars. About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty

 

[Camp]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

Doesn't a program like Medicaid make the poor less poor?

Medicaid shouldn't be cut. It should be ended. Is noe volutionary benefit to helping the poor and injured or sick survive. Sooner they die the better for the rest.

Why not just round them all up and put them in death camps. We could trick them into taking showers and pour poisonous gas on them instead of water. It would be more sanitary than leaving them dead in the streets.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?

The Liberal welfare policy is designed to keep the poor in exactly that condition.

As such it is eminently successful.

Looking at over a half century of Liberal 'guidance,' only a fool would deny same.

1. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
   1. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)”
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

 

[rightwinger]

Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" which was actually a War on the Black male head of household for 50 years and what do we have to show for it?

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

We were the worlds Number 1 superpower, you got something better than #1, I'm all ears

After all these years we haven't managed to end war. It shows that all of our military spending has been wasted

Even for you, this is truly a stupid post.

You mean military spending is never going to end wars?
Yet you somehow think the "War on Poverty" will ultimately end poverty

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?

The conservative philosophy is that if you force the poor to experience poverty to its fullest degree, with no alleviation whatsoever from the government or anyone else,

that the suffering will cause the poor to magically choose to stop being poor.

(They like to cite Africa as the best example of how this approach has remarkable success)

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLIAR!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?

The conservative philosophy is that if you force the poor to experience poverty to its fullest degree, with no alleviation whatsoever from the government or anyone else,

that the suffering will cause the poor to magically choose to stop being poor.

(They like to cite Africa as the best example of how this approach has remarkable success)

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLIAR!!!!

So you deny that you want to end the welfare state?

Ok, you want to keep it. Why then are you bitching about it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, so we end Medicaid tomorrow. Any of you who agree with PC that that is a good idea tell us why it's a good idea.