What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

I'm not arguing whether or not there should be a safety net. I'm trying to describe why an American conservative would say an American liberal has an entitlement mentality. To an American conservative (or most of them anyways), arguing for a safety net is to argue for entitlements. Thus, to American conservatives, liberals have an entitlement mentality because they argue for entitlements.

In Commonwealth countries, socialists often argue that people have a right to entitlements, no different than a right to life or whatever. Some American liberals argue that but its not as ubiquitous in American political discourse as it is elsewhere.

Yeah, well, down here even the conservatives 'get' 'entitlements'.....

Now, what they are supposed to be etc.. is another story...

 

[jillian]

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

just to interject for a moment. i think it's really important to point out that foxy's supposition is a fabrication. if it weren't, red states would be paying more into the federal system than they take and blue states would be taking more than they put in. instead, the truth is the opposite.

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

It is not at all supposition and it doesn't have anything at all to do with red states or blue states as there will be liberals and conservatives found in all 50 states. But here is another deflection shifting the focus to how people vote rather than focus on whether entitlements are a good thing or bad thing at face value. And that is why discussing most social/political principles with most liberals is so frustrating to me. Just like Grump accusing me of what I assume about anyone benefitting from a social program being a liberal. I never said or suggested such a thing. He cannot or will not focus on the principle I have offered to him now. Twice. Frustrating.

actually, it does have to do with red states and blue states in part. you make claims about what "liberals" believe and what "liberals" want all the while not acknowledging the use of entitlements by self-styled "conservatives". That isn't deflection... or shifting the focus. It is simply not permitting you to falsely portray a reality that doesn't exist.

Grump hasn't missed a single thing you've said. He's simply pointed out his disagreement with you and set forth reasons why. Not allowing you to frame the debate isn't deflection.

Your "frustration" is that everyone doesn't see the great wisdom in your pov. You neglect the fact that others believe in their own pov as fervently and see yours as being as misguided as you see theirs, if not moreso.

 

[Synthaholic]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

This is, sadly, naive.

 

[Dr Grump]

just to interject for a moment. i think it's really important to point out that foxy's supposition is a fabrication. if it weren't, red states would be paying more into the federal system than they take and blue states would be taking more than they put in. instead, the truth is the opposite.

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

It is not at all supposition and it doesn't have anything at all to do with red states or blue states as there will be liberals and conservatives found in all 50 states. But here is another deflection shifting the focus to how people vote rather than focus on whether entitlements are a good thing or bad thing at face value. And that is why discussing most social/political principles with most liberals is so frustrating to me. Just like Grump accusing me of what I assume about anyone benefitting from a social program being a liberal. I never said or suggested such a thing. He cannot or will not focus on the principle I have offered to him now. Twice. Frustrating.

actually, it does have to do with red states and blue states in part. you make claims about what "liberals" believe and what "liberals" want all the while not acknowledging the use of entitlements by self-styled "conservatives". That isn't deflection... or shifting the focus. It is simply not permitting you to falsely portray a reality that doesn't exist.

Grump hasn't missed a single thing you've said. He's simply pointed out his disagreement with you and set forth reasons why. Not allowing you to frame the debate isn't deflection.

Your "frustration" is that everyone doesn't see the great wisdom in your pov. You neglect the fact that others believe in their own pov as fervently and see yours as being as misguided as you see theirs, if not moreso.

You should have put wisdom in speech marks, too...

 

[Synthaholic]

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

 

[jillian]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

you know, that might make sense, in terms of conservatives being small government, if they didn't persistently try to legislate what people do with their own bodies and with their own morality.

seems to me THAT'S the place for small government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[
And here-in is one of the reasons that arguing with the Left can be so frustrating. There is this huge disconnect that deveoped as soon as the entitlement mentality started setting in. It was fueled by a rising pool of Marxist thought and has been capitalized on by those in government who use it to keep themselves there and also increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. One does not have to be long in Washington to become a millionaire these days which explains why so much money is spent to get elected to one of those jobs. If they play their cards right at all, being a multi-millionaire is almost guaranteed. And a huge part of that depends on increasing the size, scope, reach, and power of big government and infusing the entitlement mentality into as many as possible.

.

I didn't botehr looking at the rest of it, because it's the typical Stockholm Syndrome Conservatard White Trash crap that gee, we just need to let the wealthy finish raping us and then maybe they'll recognize we really love them...

An abuser never gets tired of abusing, no matter how many times you cower down and take it.

You are most decidedly abusing a controlled substance.
No sober person would post the things you do.
Tell us, which wealthy people are raping you? Examples?

 

[thereisnospoon]

And here-in is one of the reasons that arguing with the Left can be so frustrating. There is this huge disconnect that deveoped as soon as the entitlement mentality started setting in. It was fueled by a rising pool of Marxist thought and has been capitalized on by those in government who use it to keep themselves there and also increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. One does not have to be long in Washington to become a millionaire these days which explains why so much money is spent to get elected to one of those jobs. If they play their cards right at all, being a multi-millionaire is almost guaranteed. And a huge part of that depends on increasing the size, scope, reach, and power of big government and infusing the entitlement mentality into as many as possible.
.

This post is so generic and full of shit, I don't know where to start...

Everything Foxfyre posted is 100% spot on.
You're quote, " I don't know where to start" is you saying you have nothing in rebuttal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

they all start when someone greedy decides to game the system and the rest of us are dumb enough to let them do it.

if so why be so afraid to give your best single example of this? what does your fear tell you? Have you had Econ 101 at least, or are you just a lazy liberal who wants to pretend you understand even when you've done no work to really understand?

How about the whole fucking banking fiasco, meathead? The one where they took toxic loans, bundled them with bad loans, sold them off as derivitives to unsuspecting investors.

You lost your right to an opinion when you decided to call the OP "meat head".
Unsuspecting? Please. There was enough money to be made and everyone who participated took the risk. They got rag dolled.
Ya know who set up the investment scheme? The federal government. Yes, The federal government and the SEC make the rules.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's start with the disconnect between left and right and the entitlement mentality. The conservative sees the entitlement mentality as mostly destruction, self perpetuating, and corrupting in both government and for the recipients of the entitlements.

What say you?

Name one liberal on this board who has an entitlement mentality. Show me the stats of Dem voters who have an entitlement mentality. Show me the stats that show it is liberals who have an entitlement mentality. There's a start...off you go...

JoeB thinks that capitalists owe him a job.

Of course, he claims to be a Republican ...

No Joe thinks someone owes him a UNION job.
The very fact that liberals cheer lead for welfare programs and other social safety nets indicates they have an entitlement mentality. Liberals, especially those at war with those earn or have more than they, believe the government should take from those and give to them.
OWS is classic modern liberalism. They want among other things, all loans forgiven, free higher level education, so called 'living wage' pay without regard to the condition of the business owned by the employer, the right to occupy foreclosed homes and other vacant property.
Liberals by nature are takers. They expect things. They take shortcuts. They see what others have and they want it NOW.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think Joe is a sock puppet stirrer..that's what I think..

That aside, there seems to be this myth surrounding liberals and entitlement. George Cloony, Sean Penn and even Steven Speilberg are accused of being liberals. Do you see them asking for entitlements? on this board, Jillian is a liberal. What entitlements is she after?

And let's go back the other way. what do you call conservative big businesses asking for tax breaks? Aren't they asking for entitlements, too?

Coming from a Commonwealth nation such as yourself, I would make a slightly different observation. I believe that many leftists do have an entitlement mentality, and I would use the term leftist in a Commonwealth context, where there is a difference between a liberal and a socialist.

In America, what they usually mean is that liberals believe in social programs, and thus believe people are entitled to the work of others. So even though Jillian and other liberals may not have an entitlement mentality themselves, conservatives argue that they believe in a system which fosters an entitlement mentality amongst the general population.

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

No..That is NOT what Foxfyre stated or implied. You just wanted what she posted to say what you think it should say.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Coming from a Commonwealth nation such as yourself, I would make a slightly different observation. I believe that many leftists do have an entitlement mentality, and I would use the term leftist in a Commonwealth context, where there is a difference between a liberal and a socialist.

In America, what they usually mean is that liberals believe in social programs, and thus believe people are entitled to the work of others. So even though Jillian and other liberals may not have an entitlement mentality themselves, conservatives argue that they believe in a system which fosters an entitlement mentality amongst the general population.

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

just to interject for a moment. i think it's really important to point out that foxy's supposition is a fabrication. if it weren't, red states would be paying more into the federal system than they take and blue states would be taking more than they put in. instead, the truth is the opposite.

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

Not at all. Blue state red state have zero to do with entitlement.
The fact is many upper middle class and wealthy people vote democrat and support liberal causes.
Obviously, those people are not receiving government benefits...Unless you are a million dollar lottery winner in Michigan. Then you can tell the nation you believe you are entitled to food stamps.
Here's a perfect example. New York.
Most of the state's political power and democrat voting base is located within 50 miles of New York City. This is where most of the state's minority and upper middle class and wealthy educated liberals reside. This is nearly 10 million people of the around 19 million that reside within the Emprire State's boundaries. Save for the 10 counties which make up the portion of the NY Metro area ( within NY boundaries) the State generally votes GOP.
This is matched across the country . States with large urban centers tend to be taken by democrat presidential candidates because GOP voting power in the rest of these states is disenfranchised. California is another example. With 10 million people in The LA area plus the 5 Million POP San Francisco MSA it is difficult for non democrats to make a dent in that voting bloc.
Thing is public assistance is more prevalent in large urban ceters and far flung rural areas where jobs are scarce.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think Joe is a sock puppet stirrer..that's what I think..

That aside, there seems to be this myth surrounding liberals and entitlement. George Cloony, Sean Penn and even Steven Speilberg are accused of being liberals. Do you see them asking for entitlements? on this board, Jillian is a liberal. What entitlements is she after?

And let's go back the other way. what do you call conservative big businesses asking for tax breaks? Aren't they asking for entitlements, too?

Coming from a Commonwealth nation such as yourself, I would make a slightly different observation. I believe that many leftists do have an entitlement mentality, and I would use the term leftist in a Commonwealth context, where there is a difference between a liberal and a socialist.

In America, what they usually mean is that liberals believe in social programs, and thus believe people are entitled to the work of others. So even though Jillian and other liberals may not have an entitlement mentality themselves, conservatives argue that they believe in a system which fosters an entitlement mentality amongst the general population.

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

If you are a believer in social safety nets then you should have no problem paying for them.
Those who disagree with the process of paying able bodied to work people to not work and enjoy taxpayer funded permanent vacations should not have to pay. Why should we? We had nothing to do in the decision making process to create taxpayer funded non production.
Threat of government sanctions to insure compliance is the only way the liberal agenda can move froward.
Oh..And please spare me the pat response about infrastructure, public safety and education. The first tow are essential functions of government. Education is too important to leave in it's entirety to the public sector. Although there is a movement to reverse that way of thinking.

 

[thereisnospoon]

just to interject for a moment. i think it's really important to point out that foxy's supposition is a fabrication. if it weren't, red states would be paying more into the federal system than they take and blue states would be taking more than they put in. instead, the truth is the opposite.

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

It is not at all supposition and it doesn't have anything at all to do with red states or blue states as there will be liberals and conservatives found in all 50 state. But here is another deflecvtion shifting the focus to how people vote rather than focus on whether entitlements are a good thing or bad thing at face value. And again, THAT is what I find so frustrating in discussing almost anything with most liberals. They simply cannot or will not articulate a rationale for a principle. Instead they deflect, accuse, blame. . . .

At face value, some entitlements are good, some are bad.

And I disagree with you as to the definition of an entitlement. A company wanting tax breaks, say, over your Average Joe, is asking for an entitlement.

Taxes are not a yes or no proposition. A tax system is necessary for a functioning democracy or republic...so your argument saying it 'ain't the same' is a strawman. Everybody has to pay taxes, even your founding fathers knew that...

There should not be ANY entitlements. All social programs should be made a temporary safety net for those who through no fault of their own found themselves in need of help.
Of course the elderly( priority ONE) should take the majority of our taxes. Now this is not to say all Seniors are entitled. For instance those who draw from large pensions and/or those who receive lifetime medical benefits, should NOT have access to entitlements.
It really pisses me off when I read or hear of some older person who has two homes, one of which is a vacation home, two new cars and a boat or an RV bitch about how they NEED their medicare. Bullshit.
Of course we also need to have programs for the mentally and physically disabled who are NOT under the care of family members or have plenty of their own wealth. The benefits they would normally receive should saved for less fortunate people.

 

[Foxfyre]

just to interject for a moment. i think it's really important to point out that foxy's supposition is a fabrication. if it weren't, red states would be paying more into the federal system than they take and blue states would be taking more than they put in. instead, the truth is the opposite.

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

It is not at all supposition and it doesn't have anything at all to do with red states or blue states as there will be liberals and conservatives found in all 50 states. But here is another deflection shifting the focus to how people vote rather than focus on whether entitlements are a good thing or bad thing at face value. And that is why discussing most social/political principles with most liberals is so frustrating to me. Just like Grump accusing me of what I assume about anyone benefitting from a social program being a liberal. I never said or suggested such a thing. He cannot or will not focus on the principle I have offered to him now. Twice. Frustrating.

actually, it does have to do with red states and blue states in part. you make claims about what "liberals" believe and what "liberals" want all the while not acknowledging the use of entitlements by self-styled "conservatives". That isn't deflection... or shifting the focus. It is simply not permitting you to falsely portray a reality that doesn't exist.

Grump hasn't missed a single thing you've said. He's simply pointed out his disagreement with you and set forth reasons why. Not allowing you to frame the debate isn't deflection.

Your "frustration" is that everyone doesn't see the great wisdom in your pov. You neglect the fact that others believe in their own pov as fervently and see yours as being as misguided as you see theirs, if not moreso.

Grump has not disagreed with me. Nor have you. You both have changed the subject. I haven't asked anybody to agree with me, I have asked and asked and asked for any of you on the left to articulate an argument that is something more coherant than 'corporations are evil and suck" or "Republicans just want to invade women's uteruses' or some such that which in no way relates to anything I have said.

You simply cannot have a discussion in which one person expresses an opinion about rocks and the other person responds with something about trees.

I have stated my point of view. I am perfectly willing to defend it with anybody. My contention is that most of the liberals/leftists cannot articulate a defensible rationale for their opinion.

And so far not one of you has chosen to prove me wrong about that.

 

[Bfgrn]

And here-in is one of the reasons that arguing with the Left can be so frustrating. There is this huge disconnect that deveoped as soon as the entitlement mentality started setting in. It was fueled by a rising pool of Marxist thought and has been capitalized on by those in government who use it to keep themselves there and also increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. One does not have to be long in Washington to become a millionaire these days which explains why so much money is spent to get elected to one of those jobs. If they play their cards right at all, being a multi-millionaire is almost guaranteed. And a huge part of that depends on increasing the size, scope, reach, and power of big government and infusing the entitlement mentality into as many as possible.

But I digress.

Back to that entitlement mentality, too many on the Left do not look to Washington as the problem. They look increasingly to Washington as the mother lode, the cash cow, the all benevolent source and dispenser of all that is good. Put somebody in office that does not promote that concept and such person will be demonized, dehumanized, belittled, and scorned. Put somebody in office who does promote that concept and such person will be forgiven any sin, any character flaw, any misspoken word, and he will exalted as a king.

And this includes infusion into the national psyche that the 'king' (aka big government) should own everything and it is right and good that the king be a benevolent king taking the wealth away from the greedy and selfish rich and redistributing it to those who have less. And then all, at least those who weren't the very few evil rich, will enjoy a much more Utopian society and live happily ever after.

Conservatives understand that America was the first nation in the history of the world that rejected the concept of any high church power and/or monarchy who assigns the rights the people will have and what property they will be allowed. The Founders assigned the role of government to recognize and secure the rights of the people and then the people would have total freedom to live their lives and govern themselves. The road to prosperity is to earn it, not receive it from a benevolent king or Robin Hood. The goal is for government to secure our rights and then get out of the way so that the people can strive to prosper or seek their own happiness as they have the drive and ability to do so. That great experiment of the Founders was successful beyond even their hopes and expectations.,

Until the entitlement mentality began to sink in.

You cannot enrich the poor by tearing down the rich.
You cannot punish the rich without hurting the pooir more.
You cannot eliminate the wealthy class without starving all.

SO, America should be survival of the fittest. Thank you for verifying my contention that conservatives today support social Darwinism Foxfyre. BTW, it is REALLY ignorant on your part to mention Marx, because Marx, Engel, Lenin and Stalin were HUGE believers in Darwinism.

What we have in America today is a carbon copy of Marxism. It is Marketism, a blind religion with no common sense, compassion, human capital or moderation. And there is absolutely NO consideration of the dire consequences of your sick religion...

I have zero respect for you or your self centered beliefs. You are one of them...a fucking moron who licks the ass of the opulent.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

The Bible also says do not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn and he who will not work, let him not eat, and those who are poor stewards or squander what they are given should expect nothing but the scorn of others.

America should absolutely be the one place where those who prepare themselves to support themselves are able to do so according to their talent, skills, ability, creativity, and willingness to learn a trade, etc. etc. etc. And where those who put the most effort into it are the ones who most prosper.

And regardless of the inate abilities they are born with, those who stay in school and actually educate themselves, who don't overindulge in controlled substances, who don't get involved in illegal activity, who work at whatever jobs they can get to acquire marketable skills, references, and a work ethic, and who get married before they have kids will almost always prosper. Let's call this group Citizen A.

Perhaps you think those who drop out of school, who over indulge in controlled substances, who get involved in illegal activity, who won't stick it out on low end jobs to acquire a work ethic, marketable skills, references, who have kids but don't get married, and who find it easier just to let others support them should prosper as much? Let's call this group Citizen B.

And perhaps you think because Citizen A prospers, Citizen B is entitled to at least some of what Citizen B earns.

(NOTE: I do not expect you to actually read, understand, and/or respond to this without throwing in a lot of personal insults, red herring, straw men, and/or ad hominem, and will be pleasantly surprised if you do. But there are those posting on this thread who can do that. Unfortunately, I doubt any of them are leftists/liberals but oh well. The topic is what makes arguing with liberals so frustrating.)

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Isn't it amazing that you right wing social Darwinists read the Bible as a guide book on how to ostracize, demonize and punish God's children? Conservatives see God the avenger, not God the father. I often wonder who the Devil is in conservative beliefs? And then you have the nerve to accuse liberals of being aligned with despots like Stalin?

No liberal is against people becoming successful or wealthy. Liberals are the biggest advocates of education. But the reason for a social safety not is not to punish, it is to protect the least among us.

You NEED the poor to fit your evil self created profile of being lazy drug addicts, because it allows you to justify your punishment.

MYTH: People are poor because they are addicts or alcoholics.

FACT: Alcoholism and addiction are not limited to poor people: they are found at all levels of society, up to the Presidency. While epidemiologists debate whether alcoholism and addiction are most likely to be found in certain social classes or ethnic groups than others, they generally agree that they are more likely to be the result of the stresses of poverty than the primary cause. Something to remember, though, is that addiction often depends on availability. The addictions of poor people are limited by income. Compare this to physicians, for instance, who have the greatest exposure and easiest access to opiates: their addiction rates are higher than those of most if not all other professional groups, but they are not living in poverty.

There are reasons for and realities to poverty, you have focused on the least of them.

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

 

[JoeB131]

if so why be so afraid to give your best single example of this? what does your fear tell you? Have you had Econ 101 at least, or are you just a lazy liberal who wants to pretend you understand even when you've done no work to really understand?

How about the whole fucking banking fiasco, meathead? The one where they took toxic loans, bundled them with bad loans, sold them off as derivitives to unsuspecting investors.

You really are clueless. You have no idea what happened.

I know exactly what happened. The question is, why aren't the people responsible in prison enjoying repeated sodomy right now...

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB thinks that capitalists owe him a job.

Of course, he claims to be a Republican ...

Please point out where I ever said that.

Thank you.

Oh, wait, you can't. Becasue you're a lying sack of Wall Street Manure.

I don't think ANYONE owes anyone a job. But I think that when someone does a job, his employer shouldn't lie to them and should give them a fair share of the profit.

What a concept.

And the funny thing is, Republicans USED to understand this was a good idea. Until the Bush's anyway. They used to understand that a guy taking home a good wage was the best insulation against European style socialism.

20 years ago, someone as far to the left as Obama (who lets not forget, you admitted you voted for in 2008) never, ever could have gotten elected. He won easily in 2008 and will win bigger in 2012.

I don't much relish the thought of the GOP being the party of the very rich and dumb white southerners too stupid to realize they are being punked.

 

[JoeB131]

I'll state it again:

Let's start with the disconnect between left and right and the entitlement mentality. The conservative sees the entitlement mentality as mostly destruction, self perpetuating, and corrupting in both government and for the recipients of the entitlements.

What say you?

Oh, was that your point? Again, that's not what I believe.

I think the democrats who think that we should all go on welfare is a bad idea.

But so is the Republican who think that we should all be happy working for a pittance so a few rich assholes can own polo ponies.

The problem is, which I think you fail to understand is your kind of "Conservatism" is making their kind of "Liberalism" inevitable.

When I grew up, my Dad worked a Union job. He made a good wage, was able to raise five kids, own a two-flat in Chicago and a fishing cabin in Wisconsin. My mom was able to stay at home and work part time. Now, keep in mind, this was back in the 1960-70's (although things got really dicy in the late 1970's both because his health declined do to his exposre to Asbestos that some Corporate Asshole told him was totally safe to work with, and because the Carter economy). In short, not because he had an entitlement mentality, but because a union got him a fair wage.

Somewhere along the line, we lost that. So every recession become an excuse to cut working people's pay. Let's put in At-Will employment and right to work and offshoring and all the other things that Toro thinks are wonderful... and the few union dudes who are left, we're going to vilify as the problem.

And that's kind of the problem. You whine about entitlements, but the fact is, when you cheat the people who want to work at every turn, use every excuse to let people go, you make them have the kind of government dependence you are hear whining about. When you are getting more out of government than you are getting out of busting your ass for someone for 40 hours a week, eventually, you just want more government.

You take away a good paying Union Job at a place like AmPad and replace it with a shitty no-benefits, minimum wage job at Staples (and seriously, this is what Mitt Romney considers his great accomplishment in life), that person is going to want food stamps to put food on the table and section 8 housing to put a roof over his head and MedicAid to see a doctor when his kids get sick.

 

[Toro]

JoeB thinks that capitalists owe him a job.

Of course, he claims to be a Republican ...

Please point out where I ever said that.

Thank you.

Oh, wait, you can't. Becasue you're a lying sack of Wall Street Manure.

I don't think ANYONE owes anyone a job. But I think that when someone does a job, his employer shouldn't lie to them and should give them a fair share of the profit.

What a concept.

And the funny thing is, Republicans USED to understand this was a good idea. Until the Bush's anyway. They used to understand that a guy taking home a good wage was the best insulation against European style socialism.

20 years ago, someone as far to the left as Obama (who lets not forget, you admitted you voted for in 2008) never, ever could have gotten elected. He won easily in 2008 and will win bigger in 2012.

I don't much relish the thought of the GOP being the party of the very rich and dumb white southerners too stupid to realize they are being punked.

If you think union thugs should be allowed to beat up their employers with baseball bats because they laid them off - as you do - you clearly believe that you have a right to a job. And if you believe to a job, you believe the world owes you a living.

If you believe the right to "fight back" and inflict violence against business owners who lay you off, you clearly believe the world owes you a job.

If I want to close my factory and move it to Mexico, I am taking my money and my property and doing so. You do not have the right to the job I provide you. But you think I owe you a living because you think you have a right over what I do with my business and my savings.

That makes you a parasite.