Yes, You're A Communist

[Contumacious]

Lots of communists own property. The.problem is that they lie, cheat, steal and kill to get it.

\BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. And the capitalist are just darling little angels who worked hard and made their immense fortunes by being kind and nice! Stop it already… Stop it!

No one said capitalists were "nice." However, they do have to follow the law. Socialists, on the other hand, are the law. Under socialism the people in charge are the only ones who enjoy the wealth, and they cheat, steal and kill people on an industrial scale.

I can't name an American group that collects social security or other social benefits that has done any of those things. Many, like me, are veterans or retired military. I answered the call during the Vietnam era when a lot of you or your fathers took their sorry asses to Canada. I deserve anything I get…I fought for it. I paid my dues. So if I want to be a socialist or any god damn thing else I choose to be I will very well fucking do it. I loved my country enough to fight for it and I don't think a Communist would do it. In fact, a lot of you fucking cowardly capitalists didn't do it either. So get off my case until YOU meet the challenge like I did. Until then, you have no right to judge me. I am that I am and I don't give a damn: Sincerely… from a capitalist/socialist who loved America enough to fight and die for if I needed to!

HUH

WTF

Your post is incoherent.

Are you by any chance trying to get the VA to increase your benefits?


.

Stop reading it if you cant understand it. No one is forcing you!

Use the GI Bill to go to night school. Learn the reason the Constitution (1787) was adopted. Then, and ONLY THEN, repost.

.

 

[JQPublic1]

You didn't read nyc's statement that he couldn't be a commie because he owned property?

Which was included in my post?

oh wait, you're a commie, so you're a liar.

I am far more of a capitalist than I am a commie and I am not a liar either. Now are you an Ogre or a troll. As ugly as your disposition is, I'd have to say the former is likely the best physical description of you as well!

Of course you're a liar. And you are either a commie, or you aren't. There are no degrees of communism. Whatbyou are telling me is that you mouth the lhraseology of communism, but don't want to adhere to it yourself. Which is the bottom line for all commies. Theyblove it when they're stealing shit and killing people they don't like...but when they're the ones being killed and stolen from, suddenly they're only a LITTLE bit commie.

See post 934. You will learn who and what I REALLY am!

You didn't read nyc's statement that he couldn't be a commie because he owned property?

Which was included in my post?

oh wait, you're a commie, so you're a liar.

I am far more of a capitalist than I am a commie and I am not a liar either. Now are you an Ogre or a troll. As ugly as your disposition is, I'd have to say the former is likely the best physical description of you as well!

Of course you're a liar. And you are either a commie, or you aren't. There are no degrees of communism. Whatbyou are telling me is that you mouth the lhraseology of communism, but don't want to adhere to it yourself. Which is the bottom line for all commies. Theyblove it when they're stealing shit and killing people they don't like...but when they're the ones being killed and stolen from, suddenly they're only a LITTLE bit commie.

See post 934. You will learn who and what I REALLY am!

er...communists dont fight? So there have never been commie armies??

No, I had you pegged.correctly. And many were drafted for the viet nam war.

er…Communists generally don't fight for America as far a s I can tell. why don't you google that and get back to us?

 

[JQPublic1]

\BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. And the capitalist are just darling little angels who worked hard and made their immense fortunes by being kind and nice! Stop it already… Stop it!

No one said capitalists were "nice." However, they do have to follow the law. Socialists, on the other hand, are the law. Under socialism the people in charge are the only ones who enjoy the wealth, and they cheat, steal and kill people on an industrial scale.

I can't name an American group that collects social security or other social benefits that has done any of those things. Many, like me, are veterans or retired military. I answered the call during the Vietnam era when a lot of you or your fathers took their sorry asses to Canada. I deserve anything I get…I fought for it. I paid my dues. So if I want to be a socialist or any god damn thing else I choose to be I will very well fucking do it. I loved my country enough to fight for it and I don't think a Communist would do it. In fact, a lot of you fucking cowardly capitalists didn't do it either. So get off my case until YOU meet the challenge like I did. Until then, you have no right to judge me. I am that I am and I don't give a damn: Sincerely… from a capitalist/socialist who loved America enough to fight and die for if I needed to!

HUH

WTF

Your post is incoherent.

Are you by any chance trying to get the VA to increase your benefits?


.

Stop reading it if you cant understand it. No one is forcing you!

Use the GI Bill to go to night school. Learn the reason the Constitution (1787) was adopted. Then, and ONLY THEN, repost.

.

Fuck YOU! I have forgotten more about the Constitution than a shit bird like you will ever know!

 

[koshergrl]

No one said capitalists were "nice." However, they do have to follow the law. Socialists, on the other hand, are the law. Under socialism the people in charge are the only ones who enjoy the wealth, and they cheat, steal and kill people on an industrial scale.

I can't name an American group that collects social security or other social benefits that has done any of those things. Many, like me, are veterans or retired military. I answered the call during the Vietnam era when a lot of you or your fathers took their sorry asses to Canada. I deserve anything I get…I fought for it. I paid my dues. So if I want to be a socialist or any god damn thing else I choose to be I will very well fucking do it. I loved my country enough to fight for it and I don't think a Communist would do it. In fact, a lot of you fucking cowardly capitalists didn't do it either. So get off my case until YOU meet the challenge like I did. Until then, you have no right to judge me. I am that I am and I don't give a damn: Sincerely… from a capitalist/socialist who loved America enough to fight and die for if I needed to!

HUH

WTF

Your post is incoherent.

Are you by any chance trying to get the VA to increase your benefits?


.

Stop reading it if you cant understand it. No one is forcing you!

Use the GI Bill to go to night school. Learn the reason the Constitution (1787) was adopted. Then, and ONLY THEN, repost.

.

Fuck YOU! I have forgotten more about the Constitution than a shit bird like you will ever know!

I doubt that.

 

[there4eyeM]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

 

[koshergrl]

Surprising how many good Americans have been fooled into accepting, and voting for, communism. And when the truth is revealed, they are startled, incensed, and furious that anyone would say such a thing.

But it's true. There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

How did communism become the public religion of America? The following will explain, ....as we say in science....'its origin and insertion."


In a recent thread, one that illustrated the connections between environmentalists, communists, with the confiscation of private property, a government school graduate demonstrated how offended she was by posting this as part of a scathing disavowal of the above:

"OP tries to connect communism to the moderate left wing democrats." One More Of Those Environmentalist Fairytales

Clearly, an intervention is sorely needed.

It follows:



1. Karl Marx's lethal philosophy is the basis of both communism and of Nazism.

a. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

b. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

c. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. I don't use "lethal" in a cavalier fashion: Over 100 million men, women, and children were slaughtered by Soviet Communism alone. When that fact was stated, one inveterate Liberal poster laughed, and said 'You sure it wasn't 100 billion?'
And the horrors of Nazism are well known. But both began here:

a. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

b. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

c. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




And this is what we find leading the Democrat Party this very day:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society



Read more- if you dare, Liberals.

*yawn* Another stupid post full of nonsense from someone who has nothing better to do than to spew nonsense.

How ironic of you.

 

[koshergrl]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

Government control of resources is not evidence of humanity. It is unamerican to claim that it is. This is.not a communist country, but that is certainly a commie comment.

 

[there4eyeM]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

Government control of resources is not evidence of humanity. It is unamerican to claim that it is. This is.not a communist country, but that is certainly a commie comment.

Resources? Human resources? What are you talking about?
The statement is about needs, not resources. The U.S. has ample resources for the needs of everyone.
The only possible way one could interpret the statement as 'commie' would also judge Jesus as such. Feed the starving and care for the poor predates Marx by many centuries.
Knee jerk accusations of 'commie' for the most innocent of remarks totally discredits the accuser.
These threads seem to exist only for participants to toss out their clichés in the most gratuitous, self satisfied ways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Surprising how many good Americans have been fooled into accepting, and voting for, communism. And when the truth is revealed, they are startled, incensed, and furious that anyone would say such a thing.

But it's true. There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

How did communism become the public religion of America? The following will explain, ....as we say in science....'its origin and insertion."


In a recent thread, one that illustrated the connections between environmentalists, communists, with the confiscation of private property, a government school graduate demonstrated how offended she was by posting this as part of a scathing disavowal of the above:

"OP tries to connect communism to the moderate left wing democrats." One More Of Those Environmentalist Fairytales

Clearly, an intervention is sorely needed.

It follows:



1. Karl Marx's lethal philosophy is the basis of both communism and of Nazism.

a. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

b. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

c. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. I don't use "lethal" in a cavalier fashion: Over 100 million men, women, and children were slaughtered by Soviet Communism alone. When that fact was stated, one inveterate Liberal poster laughed, and said 'You sure it wasn't 100 billion?'
And the horrors of Nazism are well known. But both began here:

a. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

b. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

c. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




And this is what we find leading the Democrat Party this very day:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society



Read more- if you dare, Liberals.

*yawn* Another stupid post full of nonsense from someone who has nothing better to do than to spew nonsense.

Learning isn't your strong suit.....is it.


But....bet you're tired of hearing that from everyone, huh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

"Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise."

What an abject lack of analysis and judgment.


The Liberals Welfare plan has been a total failure by every metric....yet, here you are, a dunce, attempting to support same via your typical hot air post.


Now....watch and learn....here is my fact-supported analysis.

1. "....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


2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

3. ‘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.
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, liberalNew York Timescolumnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
   4. “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.”

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

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

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

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

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



Now....don't you wish you knew as much?

 

[there4eyeM]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

"Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise."

What an abject lack of analysis and judgment.


The Liberals Welfare plan has been a total failure by every metric....yet, here you are, a dunce, attempting to support same via your typical hot air post.


Now....watch and learn....here is my fact-supported analysis.

1. "....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


2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

3. ‘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.
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, liberalNew York Timescolumnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
   4. “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.”

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

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

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

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

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



Now....don't you wish you knew as much?

As usual, addresses self created question, does not address stated post.
Response totally misplaced as it is evidently pointed at 'liberals', whoever and wherever they might be, and not to the post or poster.
A simple statement was made. There are needs.
A following simple statement, so-called religious and 'moral' people should be doing the work instead of government. The work is not sufficiently accomplished. That leaves one alternative, seeing that abandoning the needy to suffer in unacceptable..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

"Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise."

What an abject lack of analysis and judgment.


The Liberals Welfare plan has been a total failure by every metric....yet, here you are, a dunce, attempting to support same via your typical hot air post.


Now....watch and learn....here is my fact-supported analysis.

1. "....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


2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

3. ‘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.
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, liberalNew York Timescolumnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
   4. “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.”

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

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

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

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

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



Now....don't you wish you knew as much?

As usual, addresses self created question, does not address stated post.
Response totally misplaced as it is evidently pointed at 'liberals', whoever and wherever they might be, and not to the post or poster.
A simple statement was made. There are needs.
A following simple statement, so-called religious and 'moral' people should be doing the work instead of government. The work is not sufficiently accomplished. That leaves one alternative, seeing that abandoning the needy to suffer in unacceptable..

1. Did you post this:
"Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise."

Social programs' means government programs....especially in the light of this:
"Obama Makes Fifth Attempt to Reduce Charitable Tax Deduction"
Obama Makes Fifth Attempt to Reduce Charitable Tax Deduction



2. Was the implication of your post: a not so subtle attack on non-governmental solutions?
This: "Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited..."
Of course it is.

a. Did I shred it?

Of course I did.



3. And....I noticed that you were not prepared to deny a single thing I posted.
Over half century of the Liberal solution to the problem of poverty, and, after enormous redistribution of wealth, we're right back at square #1.
Makes you appear the fool, doesn't it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Astute! You did understand what was said. Social problems not otherwise resolved may need collective/government attention. Bravo!
However, the statement, "Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing.", is just/simply that; i.e., a statement.
That you take it for an attack shows agreement that they should and don't. As such, you seem to view things from the 'liberal' perspective you profess to despise.
Are you one of 'their' plants, sent here to discredit 'conservatives'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Astute! You did understand what was said. Social problems not otherwise resolved may need collective/government attention. Bravo!
However, the statement, "Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing.", is just/simply that; i.e., a statement.
That you take it for an attack shows agreement that they should and don't. As such, you seem to view things from the 'liberal' perspective you profess to despise.
Are you one of 'their' plants, sent here to discredit 'conservatives'?

Vapid response....your specialty.

Keep it up....and I'll keep providing facts.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I do not think that word means what you think it means," 'Princess'.
As for facts, you must be referring to the facts as stated; unresolved social problems exist, Christians and others should address them instead of 'government' (which should be doing the least possible and certainly other things), Christians and others are not resolving these problems, and, as not resolving them is not an option in the richest nation of all times, they must be resolved collectively/by government (lamentable though that may be).
Thanks again.

 

[koshergrl]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

Government control of resources is not evidence of humanity. It is unamerican to claim that it is. This is.not a communist country, but that is certainly a commie comment.

Resources? Human resources? What are you talking about?
The statement is about needs, not resources. The U.S. has ample resources for the needs of everyone.
The only possible way one could interpret the statement as 'commie' would also judge Jesus as such. Feed the starving and care for the poor predates Marx by many centuries.
Knee jerk accusations of 'commie' for the most innocent of remarks totally discredits the accuser.
These threads seem to exist only for participants to toss out their clichés in the most gratuitous, self satisfied ways.

More commie tripe.I like how you wove in the Christian hatred, that was a nice touch.

 

[Contumacious]

"I do not think that word means what you think it means," 'Princess'.
As for facts, you must be referring to the facts as stated; unresolved social problems exist, Christians and others should address them instead of 'government' (which should be doing the least possible and certainly other things), Christians and others are not resolving these problems, and, as not resolving them is not an option in the richest nation of all times, they must be resolved collectively/by government (lamentable though that may be).
Thanks again.

Isn't it a fact that socialists/fascists INVENT problems in order to have a pretext to intervene on behalf of those who will empower them?


.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I do not think that word means what you think it means," 'Princess'.
As for facts, you must be referring to the facts as stated; unresolved social problems exist, Christians and others should address them instead of 'government' (which should be doing the least possible and certainly other things), Christians and others are not resolving these problems, and, as not resolving them is not an option in the richest nation of all times, they must be resolved collectively/by government (lamentable though that may be).
Thanks again.

Isn't it a fact that socialists/fascists INVENT problems in order to have a pretext to intervene on behalf of those who will empower them?


.

That is, indeed, a tactic of many politicians; example, Iraq.

 

[there4eyeM]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

Government control of resources is not evidence of humanity. It is unamerican to claim that it is. This is.not a communist country, but that is certainly a commie comment.

Resources? Human resources? What are you talking about?
The statement is about needs, not resources. The U.S. has ample resources for the needs of everyone.
The only possible way one could interpret the statement as 'commie' would also judge Jesus as such. Feed the starving and care for the poor predates Marx by many centuries.
Knee jerk accusations of 'commie' for the most innocent of remarks totally discredits the accuser.
These threads seem to exist only for participants to toss out their clichés in the most gratuitous, self satisfied ways.

More commie tripe.I like how you wove in the Christian hatred, that was a nice touch.

You 'wove in' nonexistent imaginings of your own. What 'Christian hate'?

 

[Norman]

Funny how often government programs cause social problems. For example, the single motherhood epidemic is very much driven by welfare benefits.

Why would a government solve a problem, when generating problems seem to generate much more votes? I don't quite understand the mechanics here.

Unless of course it's a problem that someone just isn't able to parasite enough off of the society...