"compassionate liberal" an Oxymoron!

[Steelplate]

What a crock of shit...

You have an argument against his statistics ?

By all means....share.

Don't need to. I've heard it all before... it's just the same bullshit right wing talking points being continually vomited on here. I could leave this site for a week, come back, and it would still be the same fucking thing.

 

[Truthmatters]

tell us WHY SS was invented?

what was it in response to?

Truthmatters....let me make myself perfectly clear.

I have several times did my best to engage in a fair debate with you. I have cited my opinion and backed it up with facts. You have cited articles written by bloggers and such and used them to refute my facts.

I have tried to discuss polls with you and when the polls supported your argument, I have helped show you how the polls neglected to show the demographics of those polled eliminating the validity of the poll..and you responded by saying that I just did not like the results of the poll.

I have never referred to a left politician as a wing nut, an idiot or a whacko. You do nothing BUT that when discussing right leaning politicians.

When I cite facts you call me a liar. When I provide links, you call those in the links liars.

So all that being said....do not ask me any more quesions.

I refuse to engage in a debate with you.

what a bunch of tripe.

I very rarely link to blogs so that one is a lie.

You have done the right wing poll dance many a time.

Where have I called you a liar in the face of a demonstrateable fact? Go get an example.

Go get an example of a respectable link I called a Liar.

You see you wont enguage me because you can not do so in the face of facts and emerge unscathed.

Im used to being ignored by cons who cant defend what they stand for.

 

[Truthmatters]

Before the creation of Social Security, some Americans had private or state pensions, but most supported themselves into old age by working. The 1930 census, for example, found 58 percent of men over 65 still in the workforce; in contrast, by 2002, the figure was 18 percent.

The elderly also relied heavily on their families. ''Children, friends and relatives have borne and still carry the major cost of supporting the aged,'' the Committee on Economic Security, the Roosevelt administration panel that developed Social Security, reported in 1935. ''Several of the state surveys have disclosed that from 30 to 50 percent of the people over 65 years of age were being supported in this way.''

 

[Steelplate]

So...in other words.....you have become overly dependant on Social Security. So have I. So have all of us.

So if it happens with Social Security.....what makes you think it wouldnt happen with food stamps and welfare....?????

I'm not overly (your adverb) dependent on Social Security at all. In the hypothetical you posed, I explained that my mother (78 years old) IS dependent on Social Security. Meanwhile, there are millions of people no where near 65 who are Social Security recipients.

I'm not saying some programs need reformation. They do. But reformation does not equal elimination.

Seems Conservatives want to take advantage of a lousy economy to eliminate social safety net programs right while they're needed the most. And the OP whines about "compassionate Liberalism" as an oxymoron. Well, let's hear how compassionate Conservative policies really are! Playing politics with people's lives is hardly responsible.

Wrong.

Many, if not most conservatives I know personally feel as I do.

'entitlement programs are necessary to assist people during hard times. They are necessary to assist those challanged be it meentally or physically. They are not only necessary..they are the responsibility of the American People. However, there is a small majority of people that DO game the game as it pertains to entitlementys....but they do not make it worthy for us to eliminate the progrmas. We should do what we can to eliuminate the abuse...but not end the programs'

But the spin out there has us hating the poor.

As a side note...you are a good son to your mom. She should be proud to know you will always be there for her. Best of luck to her during her golden years....78...she has many years to go!

well... if you lump SS in the same vein as Welfare... I guess you could call them "entitlement Programs" However, SS is not anything like welfare.. It's a retirement Program that we as citizens pay into to secure our future that is unaffected by the greed and corruption of Wall Street and the Stock Market and it's volatility. And that's why the right is against it. Their benefactors want control of that money too, so they can make a profit off of it.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not overly (your adverb) dependent on Social Security at all. In the hypothetical you posed, I explained that my mother (78 years old) IS dependent on Social Security. Meanwhile, there are millions of people no where near 65 who are Social Security recipients.

I'm not saying some programs need reformation. They do. But reformation does not equal elimination.

Seems Conservatives want to take advantage of a lousy economy to eliminate social safety net programs right while they're needed the most. And the OP whines about "compassionate Liberalism" as an oxymoron. Well, let's hear how compassionate Conservative policies really are! Playing politics with people's lives is hardly responsible.

Wrong.

Many, if not most conservatives I know personally feel as I do.

'entitlement programs are necessary to assist people during hard times. They are necessary to assist those challanged be it meentally or physically. They are not only necessary..they are the responsibility of the American People. However, there is a small majority of people that DO game the game as it pertains to entitlementys....but they do not make it worthy for us to eliminate the progrmas. We should do what we can to eliuminate the abuse...but not end the programs'

But the spin out there has us hating the poor.

As a side note...you are a good son to your mom. She should be proud to know you will always be there for her. Best of luck to her during her golden years....78...she has many years to go!

well... if you lump SS in the same vein as Welfare... I guess you could call them "entitlement Programs" However, SS is not anything like welfare.. It's a retirement Program that we as citizens pay into to secure our future that is unaffected by the greed and corruption of Wall Street and the Stock Market and it's volatility. And that's why the right is against it. Their benefactors want control of that money too, so they can make a profit off of it.

That is total spin of what we want.

We want to know that if we put into it, we will get it back.....with the interest we would receive on it if we invested it ourselves.

But based on many predictions.....some of our younger generation may be outting into it and getting back less...if anything at all.

What good is spinning what we feel?

Do you think that is the best way to debate?

 

[Truthmatters]

Why does the right want every decent program to help the American people live decent lives torn assunder?

 

[jgarden]

For all the sobriquets "bleeding heart liberal", "compassionate liberal" are perfect examples of oxymorons!

Statistics show
liberals give less.
Do not donate blood.

Liberals for all their supposedly "compassion" though are more willing to encourage dependency.

And this has been very clearly show after reading Jeb Bush's article in
the WSJ "Capitalism and the Right to Rise"!

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."

Jeb Bush: Capitalism and the Right to Rise - WSJ.com

As Jeb correctly outlines our society has been less inclined to let people fail!
As socialism continues to creep in, it is becoming more acceptable to have a cop on every corner, a camera in every intersection!

All because the "compassionate liberal" wants more control over our lives!

I was told an "open palm holds more then a closed fist" and
"compassionate liberals" actions show they prefer the fist!

And with more closed fists.. are fewer liberating ideas, businesses, services because why should anyone try if every effort is beaten by a closed society!

Jeb Bush - is that the same Jeb Bush whose father (13%) and brother (27.8%), who during their terms as president, are directly responsible for increasing the federal debt/GDP by over 40%?

Is he not the brother of GW Bush who inherited a budget surplus and after 8 years of his his "stewardship," left office with the largest accummulated debt since WW2 - not to mention the nation's economy in shatters?

Now there's one family responsible for putting the "moron" into "oxymoron!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

 

[healthmyths]

how does this study measure all the donations in this country by party membership?

Where on the donation form is your party affiliation?

How much time is donated ?

Not all donations are MONEY are they?

This is a flawed study for many reasons and those are just a few

I am GLAD YOU asked!

Arthur Brooks “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism” | THE LIFE & WEALTH BALANCE

A common perception is that liberals and Democrats are more “socially concerned” than conservative Republicans, and one might make the natural leap that because of this, they are more likely to be charitable. According to the research that Arthur Brooks conduced though, it’s exactly the opposite.

How could that be? That’s impossible!


Page 22 of Arthur C Brooks, book "Who Really Cares :The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism"

Registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 then Democrats (90 to 83%)
More then money and time, blood donations.
Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.

In 2002 self-described liberals younger than 30 were 12% less like to give money and 33% less willing to give blood then their conservatives counter-parts.
Liberal young Americans [voted for Obama!] in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones.
A lower percentage said they[young liberals] would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer.

Page 23:
Among state which 60% or more voted for Bush, average portion of income donated was 3.5% versus states giving less then 40% for Bush - donated 1.9%.
In 2003 residents in the top five "Bush states" were 51% more likely to volunteer those in the bottom five.

MORE STATS then you can understand I"M SURE!!!

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth.
Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative --
states in the last presidential election.

Who gives to charity? - John Stossel - Townhall Conservative