Yes, You're A Communist

[there4eyeM]

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...

Quite possibly true. All the more reason for non-governmental intervention (or, is that 'hating Christians?).

 

[JakeStarkey]

JQPublic1 makes Conty, bripat, koshergrl, and the such relentlessly stupid look just so . . . relentlessly stupid.

Any butt who writes, "Social Security itself is cheating and stealing on a vast scale" simply loses any claim to expect respect in discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Funny how often government programs cause social problems. For example, the single motherhood epidemic is very much driven by welfare benefits" is a relentlessly stupid post. Single mothers have always existed, from out of wedlock to becoming widows or divorcees. We the American Public are expected to let them and the children starve to death?

 

[JQPublic1]

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

The population is larger than it was 40 years ago and there also have been a number of economic calamities since then. Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years.
Most applicants use welfare as a temporary buffer against hard times. During the last years of the Bush administration I lived in California and media experts said poor people from all over the country were trying to get to the golden state for relief. My casual observances validated that assessment. With my own eyes I saw white families living under overpasses, many with confederate license plates on their vehicles. Indeed California is generous to welfare recipients and people traveled hundreds of miles to get there and stake their claim. For the nations poor, this was the new gold rush for those who had been uprooted by Bush's republican initiatives: 2 wars, subprime mortgages and medicare part D financing. And don't forget the failing auto industry and Ban crisis bail outs.
Thats how Obama came to be President of the USA. And now tranquillity has once again emerged…. Welfare saves lives in two ways. One it takes the edge off of desperation and decreases the chance someone will kill you to get money for food.

2. It keeps a spark of dignity and hope alive in those who need a temporary reprieve. And yes, there are those who appear to abuse it like any addict who is mentally incapable of helping him/herself. Do we abandon them to starve and rot int he streets and alleys they call home?

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.

I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals
this country has experienced in the last 40 years, and especially during republican administrations, It is almost miraculous that we have recovered as well as we have. We are back to normal employment levels.Thanks to the efforts of Obama and crew.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

The population is larger than it was 40 years ago and there also have been a number of economic calamities since then. Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years.
Most applicants use welfare as a temporary buffer against hard times. During the last years of the Bush administration I lived in California and media experts said poor people from all over the country were trying to get to the golden state for relief. My casual observances validated that assessment. With my own eyes I saw white families living under overpasses, many with confederate license plates on their vehicles. Indeed California is generous to welfare recipients and people traveled hundreds of miles to get there and stake their claim. For the nations poor, this was the new gold rush for those who had been uprooted by Bush's republican initiatives: 2 wars, subprime mortgages and medicare part D financing. And don't forget the failing auto industry and Ban crisis bail outs.
Thats how Obama came to be President of the USA. And now tranquillity has once again emerged…. Most of the white families I saw have a roof over their heads and are much better off because welfare saved their very lives.

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.

I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals
this country has experienced in the last 40 years, and especially during republican administrations, It is almost miraculous that we have recovered as well as we have. We are back to normal employment levels.Thanks to the efforts of Obama and crew.

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?



2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.



a. Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"


Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression



b. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

The point?

Liberal solutions, based on materialism, not the changing of values and attitudes, are abject failures.

You know, like the abject failure in the White House today.

 

[Moonglow]

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

The population is larger than it was 40 years ago and there also have been a number of economic calamities since then. Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years.
Most applicants use welfare as a temporary buffer against hard times. During the last years of the Bush administration I lived in California and media experts said poor people from all over the country were trying to get to the golden state for relief. My casual observances validated that assessment. With my own eyes I saw white families living under overpasses, many with confederate license plates on their vehicles. Indeed California is generous to welfare recipients and people traveled hundreds of miles to get there and stake their claim. For the nations poor, this was the new gold rush for those who had been uprooted by Bush's republican initiatives: 2 wars, subprime mortgages and medicare part D financing. And don't forget the failing auto industry and Ban crisis bail outs.
Thats how Obama came to be President of the USA. And now tranquillity has once again emerged…. Most of the white families I saw have a roof over their heads and are much better off because welfare saved their very lives.

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.

I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals
this country has experienced in the last 40 years, and especially during republican administrations, It is almost miraculous that we have recovered as well as we have. We are back to normal employment levels.Thanks to the efforts of Obama and crew.

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?



2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.



a. Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"


Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression



b. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

The point?

Liberal solutions, based on materialism, not the changing of values and attitudes, are abject failures.

You know, like the abject failure in the White House today.

Conservative ideology was to let them starve to death was not popular in the USA after WWI, and those bonus camps that Hoover had destroyed, was not a smart move...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The "resources" you refer to are may labor and time. The government doesn't own these. I do. Government doesn't have squat that it doesn't take from me first. Claiming what I produce is a U.S. "resource" is a commie comment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

The population is larger than it was 40 years ago and there also have been a number of economic calamities since then. Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years.
Most applicants use welfare as a temporary buffer against hard times. During the last years of the Bush administration I lived in California and media experts said poor people from all over the country were trying to get to the golden state for relief. My casual observances validated that assessment. With my own eyes I saw white families living under overpasses, many with confederate license plates on their vehicles. Indeed California is generous to welfare recipients and people traveled hundreds of miles to get there and stake their claim. For the nations poor, this was the new gold rush for those who had been uprooted by Bush's republican initiatives: 2 wars, subprime mortgages and medicare part D financing. And don't forget the failing auto industry and Ban crisis bail outs.
Thats how Obama came to be President of the USA. And now tranquillity has once again emerged…. Most of the white families I saw have a roof over their heads and are much better off because welfare saved their very lives.

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.

I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals
this country has experienced in the last 40 years, and especially during republican administrations, It is almost miraculous that we have recovered as well as we have. We are back to normal employment levels.Thanks to the efforts of Obama and crew.

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?



2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.



a. Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"


Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression



b. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

The point?

Liberal solutions, based on materialism, not the changing of values and attitudes, are abject failures.

You know, like the abject failure in the White House today.

Conservative ideology was to let them starve to death was not popular in the USA after WWI, and those bonus camps that Hoover had destroyed, was not a smart move...

I almost feel sorry for you.

Almost.

Gads, you're dumb. Have you ever read a book in your life....???
I mean a book that didn't involve Crayolas?


"Conservative ideology was to let them starve to death..."

Wadda maroon!!!!!!
Starvation?????
In America?????????

Only in Soviet communist propaganda.

You dunces have been taught total fallacies....and go right on believing them.....never getting off your duff to do any research.


Like this:
... a table that shows trends in death rates per 100,000 population. Starvation does not appear on the list, nor does it rate a mention in the article. The researchers do acknowledge that malnutrition led to decreased health during the Depression, but not to increased mortality. Malnutrition was a widespread problem, starvation was not.

Sources: David Stuckler, Christopher Meissner, Price Fishback, Sanjay Basu, Martin McKee. 2011. "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929-1937." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (link)

Price Fishback, Michael Haines, and Shawn Kantor. 2005. "Births, Deaths, and New Deal Relief During the Great Depression."

When, oh when, will there ever be educated Leftists??????

I guess if you had an education you'd be a conservative.

 

[JQPublic1]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

 

[Moonglow]

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

The population is larger than it was 40 years ago and there also have been a number of economic calamities since then. Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years.
Most applicants use welfare as a temporary buffer against hard times. During the last years of the Bush administration I lived in California and media experts said poor people from all over the country were trying to get to the golden state for relief. My casual observances validated that assessment. With my own eyes I saw white families living under overpasses, many with confederate license plates on their vehicles. Indeed California is generous to welfare recipients and people traveled hundreds of miles to get there and stake their claim. For the nations poor, this was the new gold rush for those who had been uprooted by Bush's republican initiatives: 2 wars, subprime mortgages and medicare part D financing. And don't forget the failing auto industry and Ban crisis bail outs.
Thats how Obama came to be President of the USA. And now tranquillity has once again emerged…. Most of the white families I saw have a roof over their heads and are much better off because welfare saved their very lives.

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.

I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals
this country has experienced in the last 40 years, and especially during republican administrations, It is almost miraculous that we have recovered as well as we have. We are back to normal employment levels.Thanks to the efforts of Obama and crew.

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?



2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.



a. Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"


Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression



b. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

The point?

Liberal solutions, based on materialism, not the changing of values and attitudes, are abject failures.

You know, like the abject failure in the White House today.

Conservative ideology was to let them starve to death was not popular in the USA after WWI, and those bonus camps that Hoover had destroyed, was not a smart move...

I almost feel sorry for you.

Almost.

Gads, you're dumb. Have you ever read a book in your life....???
I mean a book that didn't involve Crayolas?


"Conservative ideology was to let them starve to death..."

Wadda maroon!!!!!!
Starvation?????
In America?????????

Only in Soviet communist propaganda.

You dunces have been taught total fallacies....and go right on believing them.....never getting off your duff to do any research.


Like this:
... a table that shows trends in death rates per 100,000 population. Starvation does not appear on the list, nor does it rate a mention in the article. The researchers do acknowledge that malnutrition led to decreased health during the Depression, but not to increased mortality. Malnutrition was a widespread problem, starvation was not.

Sources: David Stuckler, Christopher Meissner, Price Fishback, Sanjay Basu, Martin McKee. 2011. "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929-1937." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (link)

Price Fishback, Michael Haines, and Shawn Kantor. 2005. "Births, Deaths, and New Deal Relief During the Great Depression."

When, oh when, will there ever be educated Leftists??????

I guess if you had an education you'd be a conservative.

Thank you for confirming what I said that the mass populace did not want to be treated like after they saw what the Europeans were treated like...after WWI, at least on the winning side..More social liberalism...where as before WWI, they let the general population starve during industrial era economic slumps......

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

"So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!"

As is the case with so very many of your posts.....the very opposite is the case.

Star Parker put it this way:
1. There is the passage from Genesis 25:29-34, which accurately describes the cultural shifts that took place during the Great Depression. Read this, and replace "Jacob" with "Uncle Sam," "Esau," with "the People," and "birthright," with "freedom."

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew,Esau came in from the open country,famished.30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew!I’m famished!”

31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”

32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”

33 But Jacob said, “Swearto me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthrightto Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew.He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

So Esau despised his birthright.

2. So, as a result, corrosive indolence warped a once healthy work ethic, and a new cultural ideal took hold in society. Once the needy got a taste of government handouts, the genie was out of the bottle. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness became the expectation of government obligation to provide happiness to everyone. Dependence begat a lower echelon of faithful voter. Politicians advanced the idea that the alleviation of poverty was the sole responsibility of politicians. What Tocqueville had predicted came to pass.


3. As he predicted, instilled was a view of government as a power “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” that “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America."

 

[koshergrl]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

 

[JQPublic1]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

1. "You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it."

There isn't anyone 'far smarter than' I.

The huge gulf between us is one reason why I need not mention how I run circles around you.

One clue is that I am able to document everything I post.



2. Let's take this post of yours: "so you attack the Will of the People accordingly."
Actually I do, often.
In cases like this:

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

Now....what were you saying about "the will of the people"?


3. According to the precursor of Hitler and Stalin, the French Revolution was based on the 'will of the people.'
Let's pretend you had an education....you'd be conversant with this description of 'the will of the people'...

1. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

Disagree....and the consequence is death. Such is the view of every totalitarian regime.

1. Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.” Himmefarb, , Op. Cit.

Ready to admit you're a moron????

 

[koshergrl]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

 

[JQPublic1]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

 

[koshergrl]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

 

[bripat9643]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

Wrong. Socialism didn't create the middle class. Capitalism did. Capitalism created all the cars, houses, refrigerators, radios and TVs that define middle class life. Capitalism provided the jobs that allowed people to pay for these things.

Socialism did nothing to improve the material welfare of the average person. Nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

The main reason is imported labor from third world countries that is willing to work for a fraction of what Americans are used to making.

 

[Moonglow]

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

Not true, as what was seen in Britain around 1850, when liberal free trade philosophy was tried and the Corn Law was dropped which dropped tariffs on imports, making it a free trade nation, much like what has happened in the USA with free trade deals....Also Britain was losing manufacturing production to other nations, notably the US and Germany were out producing...Which is what is happening now, the US has other nations, China, which are outproducing and undercharging to take over markets....The American businessman takes the profits, in effect what has happened has undercut the middles class and stagnated white birth rates..same thing that happened in Britain...