Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Over and over, Liberal policies have been shown to be detrimental to society, yet remain in perpetuity.
Why?
Over and over, Liberal policies have been shown to be detrimental to society, yet remain in perpetuity.
Why?
Do you remember saying this?
"The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of poverty. It is no home-no heat- no food. Thats poverty."
How much of your own definition of poverty is there in America?
Practically none, wouldn't you agree?
If then poverty - what YOU call poverty - has been virtually irradicated in this country,
I say the War on Poverty has been a success.
H. L. Mencken once called politics the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
?[/B]
Over and over, Liberal policies have been shown to be detrimental to society, yet remain in perpetuity.
Why?
Do you remember saying this?
"The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of poverty. It is no home-no heat- no food. Thats poverty."
How much of your own definition of poverty is there in America?
Practically none, wouldn't you agree?
If then poverty - what YOU call poverty - has been virtually irradicated in this country,
I say the War on Poverty has been a success.
Herculean efforts of yours to change the subject can mean only one thing:
I've hit the nail on the head: Liberal welfare policies are a sham and a failure.
And, actually, so are you.
H. L. Mencken once called politics “the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
?[/B]
So if we eliminated the welfare state and let charity bear the whole burden instead,
how much more of your income would you be willing to donate to those charities?
...oh wait, I forgot, you don't work, so you don't have income, and you don't pay taxes,
and someone else pays all your bills.
Just curious, has that made you lazy? Has that diminished you spiritually, morally? Are you a good example of the horrors of handouts?
Do you remember saying this?
"The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of “poverty.” It is “no home-no heat- no food.” That’s poverty."
How much of your own definition of poverty is there in America?
Practically none, wouldn't you agree?
If then poverty - what YOU call poverty - has been virtually irradicated in this country,
I say the War on Poverty has been a success.
Herculean efforts of yours to change the subject can mean only one thing:
I've hit the nail on the head: Liberal welfare policies are a sham and a failure.
And, actually, so are you.
How can they be a failure if poverty as you describe it is all but gone?
H. L. Mencken once called politics “the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
?[/B]
So if we eliminated the welfare state and let charity bear the whole burden instead,
how much more of your income would you be willing to donate to those charities?
...oh wait, I forgot, you don't work, so you don't have income, and you don't pay taxes,
and someone else pays all your bills.
Just curious, has that made you lazy? Has that diminished you spiritually, morally? Are you a good example of the horrors of handouts?
How much of your own definition of poverty is there in America?
Practically none, wouldn't you agree?
If then poverty - what YOU call poverty - has been virtually irradicated[sic] in this country,
I say the War on Poverty has been a success.
How much of your own definition of poverty is there in America?
Practically none, wouldn't you agree?
If then poverty - what YOU call poverty - has been virtually irradicated[sic] in this country,
I say the War on Poverty has been a success.
Hey, great!
This means we can now abolish all the "Help those in Poverty" programs, right?
Or, was the "War on Poverty" not quite as successful as you say?
"Liberals measure the success of their programs, by how many people the programs are helping.
"Conservatives measure success, by how many people no longer need those programs' help."
H. L. Mencken once called politics the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
?[/B]
So if we eliminated the welfare state and let charity bear the whole burden instead,
how much more of your income would you be willing to donate to those charities?
...oh wait, I forgot, you don't work, so you don't have income, and you don't pay taxes,
and someone else pays all your bills.
Just curious, has that made you lazy? Has that diminished you spiritually, morally? Are you a good example of the horrors of handouts?
".... has that made you lazy?"
7. "... The Great Society programs increased the amount spent on welfare programs from about $10 billion (1995 dollars) to $50 billion by the end of the decade, and the Left actually believed that with this greater redistribution of wealth, poverty could soon be eradicated.
Left-wing intellectuals began promoting the notion that poverty was never caused by laziness or other vices but by the capitalist system itself. Anyone suggesting otherwise, to this day, is said to be 'blaming the victim.'
8. In a sense, it is true that capitalism breeds poverty, insofar as 'poverty' is a relative term and in a society with any income inequalities some will be classified as 'poor.' But these relative measures of poverty are not particularly useful.....
It seems best to insist on an absolute standard of poverty, difficult as it may be to identify. This concept has the virtue of recognizing that capitalism, a system which allows for inequality, has produced more material wealth and eradicated more disease, death, and famine than any other economic order..... it rids us of the idea that socialism could ever be a solution to poverty, as that would require a global government ....
a. ... under an absolute definition of poverty, the government could no longer provide a guaranteed income to people making under a certain percentage of the median income, but would be limited to providing for a demonstrated need for food, clothing, or shelter."
The Yale Free Press
No matter how much failure the Liberal welfare policies provide.....
....it goes on and on.
So if we eliminated the welfare state and let charity bear the whole burden instead,
how much more of your income would you be willing to donate to those charities?
...oh wait, I forgot, you don't work, so you don't have income, and you don't pay taxes,
and someone else pays all your bills.
Just curious, has that made you lazy? Has that diminished you spiritually, morally? Are you a good example of the horrors of handouts?
".... has that made you lazy?"
7. "... The Great Society programs increased the amount spent on welfare programs from about $10 billion (1995 dollars) to $50 billion by the end of the decade, and the Left actually believed that with this greater redistribution of wealth, poverty could soon be eradicated.
Left-wing intellectuals began promoting the notion that poverty was never caused by laziness or other vices but by the capitalist system itself. Anyone suggesting otherwise, to this day, is said to be 'blaming the victim.'
8. In a sense, it is true that capitalism breeds poverty, insofar as 'poverty' is a relative term and in a society with any income inequalities some will be classified as 'poor.' But these relative measures of poverty are not particularly useful.....
It seems best to insist on an absolute standard of poverty, difficult as it may be to identify. This concept has the virtue of recognizing that capitalism, a system which allows for inequality, has produced more material wealth and eradicated more disease, death, and famine than any other economic order..... it rids us of the idea that socialism could ever be a solution to poverty, as that would require a global government ....
a. ... under an absolute definition of poverty, the government could no longer provide a guaranteed income to people making under a certain percentage of the median income, but would be limited to providing for a demonstrated need for food, clothing, or shelter."
The Yale Free Press
No matter how much failure the Liberal welfare policies provide.....
....it goes on and on.
You ramble on and on, and yet you have NO alternative solutions.
Tell us, if we end Medicaid, where do the poor people on Medicaid get their healthcare,
and who pays for it?
I hate to tell you this political chic but welfare is here to stay. Maybe not as it is (it has undergone changes over the years. Some good some not so good) but still not going to be eliminated. So sorry. And you are so nasty about it to. But welfare is still here and not going anywhere. I wish it was going away. I wish that there was an abundance of educated, motivated people on welfare just waiting to go back to work. I also wish there were more jobs for them to go to. Ah but that ain't happening right now either.
Is it true you don't work? If so, then your welfare is being provided by who? As long as its not me I don't care but I am curious.
But you still don't have to be so nasty about the fact there are a lot of poorly educated, poorly motivated people out there who are more concerned with their survival than your condemnation.
H. L. Mencken once called politics the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
No, not to help the poor....it doesn't.
a. The percentage of those in 'poverty' is roughly the same today, trillions of dollars later, as when the 'War on Poverty' was instituted......a half century later.
b. If they try....Liberal creation has seen to it that as income of the poor rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings.
c. Logic dictates that there must be some ulterior purpose to the program.
d. Oh....and analysis of the welfare reform under Clinton shows that conservative policy changes actually produces better results.....hmmmmm....
1. ".... the most dangerous element of the welfare state is not the fact that it spins up into increasing debt, but rather that it creates citizens who are unfit for democratic self-governance.
2. .... there have been numerous policy changes advocated by conservatives and libertarians ...that help to give more independence to the less fortunate. But ... the Left still operates on the premise that its approach to poverty is more morally sound.
3. The most radical solution to poverty advocated by those on the Right is the elimination of government welfare programs. ... this idea is met with violent opposition from those who fear that people will starve on the streets ....these objectors ignore the obvious fact that there was life before the welfare state.
However, the facts...support the conservative case that people don't have to be forced to be charitable.
a. ...there has always been a consensus in America that there is a duty to take care of the poor.... Unlike today, it was assumed that some people, given the choice to work or not, would choose sloth. This brought the necessity of distinguishing between those who were voluntarily poor and those who were merely affected by circumstance, so that attention could be focused on the temporarily downtrodden.
4... there were numerous charitable organizations ... the largest of which was the mutual aid society... primarily for lower- and middle-class workers, and provided benefits such as life insurance, health insurance, and retirement pensions. ....with particularly high participation rates among African-Americans and immigrants. Mutual aid societies were what Tocqueville had in mind when he praised the American reliance upon associations. Such organizations were a unique feature of democracy, and of people who took it upon themselves to attempt to alleviate the suffering of their neighbors rather than leaving that messy job to the state or to the wealthy.
a. The average life insurance policy of the largest aid societies in 1919 was $1,100, equivalent to the annual salary of the average American worker.
The Masons, for one, established their own old age homes for the elderly, spending an average of $1,800 per resident in 1914.
Aid societies were the largest suppliers of health insurance before the Great Depression, typically offering benefits ranging from $7 to $10 a week in case of illness. Unlike modern HMOs, there was a strong incentive not to cheat the system since false claims were easily recognized....
5. Church-based charity in America has always operated on the premise that the poor need spiritual guidance as much as material comfort, and attempted to provide both.
a. .... the federal job-training programs which have replaced these organizations have been, if anything, counterproductive. A six-year study by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1993 showed that young black males enrolled in federal job training actually had 10.7% lower earnings after the program than a control group that did not participate in job training."
The Yale Free Press
Over and over, Liberal policies have been shown to be detrimental to society, yet remain in perpetuity.
Why?
".... has that made you lazy?"
7. "... The Great Society programs increased the amount spent on welfare programs from about $10 billion (1995 dollars) to $50 billion by the end of the decade, and the Left actually believed that with this greater redistribution of wealth, poverty could soon be eradicated.
Left-wing intellectuals began promoting the notion that poverty was never caused by laziness or other vices but by the capitalist system itself. Anyone suggesting otherwise, to this day, is said to be 'blaming the victim.'
8. In a sense, it is true that capitalism breeds poverty, insofar as 'poverty' is a relative term and in a society with any income inequalities some will be classified as 'poor.' But these relative measures of poverty are not particularly useful.....
It seems best to insist on an absolute standard of poverty, difficult as it may be to identify. This concept has the virtue of recognizing that capitalism, a system which allows for inequality, has produced more material wealth and eradicated more disease, death, and famine than any other economic order..... it rids us of the idea that socialism could ever be a solution to poverty, as that would require a global government ....
a. ... under an absolute definition of poverty, the government could no longer provide a guaranteed income to people making under a certain percentage of the median income, but would be limited to providing for a demonstrated need for food, clothing, or shelter."
The Yale Free Press
No matter how much failure the Liberal welfare policies provide.....
....it goes on and on.
You ramble on and on, and yet you have NO alternative solutions.
Tell us, if we end Medicaid, where do the poor people on Medicaid get their healthcare,
and who pays for it?
So....you have neither the ability nor the intention to defend Liberal welfare policies?
You can't claim that they are efficacious, successful.....or not a detriment to the nation or toe the potential of those receiving it......
Good start.
BTW....you do know that welfare itself is responsible for the dissolution of families, and children growing up with no father in the home.
Want to dispute that?
No?
Even better.
Liberalism has destroyed this nation.
[
So....you have neither the ability nor the intention to defend Liberal welfare policies?
You can't claim that they are efficacious, successful.....or not a detriment to the nation or toe the potential of those receiving it......
.
H. L. Mencken once called politics the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
No, not to help the poor....it doesn't.
a. The percentage of those in 'poverty' is roughly the same today, trillions of dollars later, as when the 'War on Poverty' was instituted......a half century later.
b. If they try....Liberal creation has seen to it that as income of the poor rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings.
c. Logic dictates that there must be some ulterior purpose to the program.
d. Oh....and analysis of the welfare reform under Clinton shows that conservative policy changes actually produces better results.....hmmmmm....
1. ".... the most dangerous element of the welfare state is not the fact that it spins up into increasing debt, but rather that it creates citizens who are unfit for democratic self-governance.
2. .... there have been numerous policy changes advocated by conservatives and libertarians ...that help to give more independence to the less fortunate. But ... the Left still operates on the premise that its approach to poverty is more morally sound.
3. The most radical solution to poverty advocated by those on the Right is the elimination of government welfare programs. ... this idea is met with violent opposition from those who fear that people will starve on the streets ....these objectors ignore the obvious fact that there was life before the welfare state.
However, the facts...support the conservative case that people don't have to be forced to be charitable.
a. ...there has always been a consensus in America that there is a duty to take care of the poor.... Unlike today, it was assumed that some people, given the choice to work or not, would choose sloth. This brought the necessity of distinguishing between those who were voluntarily poor and those who were merely affected by circumstance, so that attention could be focused on the temporarily downtrodden.
4... there were numerous charitable organizations ... the largest of which was the mutual aid society... primarily for lower- and middle-class workers, and provided benefits such as life insurance, health insurance, and retirement pensions. ....with particularly high participation rates among African-Americans and immigrants. Mutual aid societies were what Tocqueville had in mind when he praised the American reliance upon associations. Such organizations were a unique feature of democracy, and of people who took it upon themselves to attempt to alleviate the suffering of their neighbors rather than leaving that messy job to the state or to the wealthy.
a. The average life insurance policy of the largest aid societies in 1919 was $1,100, equivalent to the annual salary of the average American worker.
The Masons, for one, established their own old age homes for the elderly, spending an average of $1,800 per resident in 1914.
Aid societies were the largest suppliers of health insurance before the Great Depression, typically offering benefits ranging from $7 to $10 a week in case of illness. Unlike modern HMOs, there was a strong incentive not to cheat the system since false claims were easily recognized....
5. Church-based charity in America has always operated on the premise that the poor need spiritual guidance as much as material comfort, and attempted to provide both.
a. .... the federal job-training programs which have replaced these organizations have been, if anything, counterproductive. A six-year study by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1993 showed that young black males enrolled in federal job training actually had 10.7% lower earnings after the program than a control group that did not participate in job training."
The Yale Free Press
Over and over, Liberal policies have been shown to be detrimental to society, yet remain in perpetuity.
Why?
You dredged up some rightwing student's editorial from 1999 for your daily wisdom?
lol
H. L. Mencken once called politics the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Yup.....that's Liberalism.
Nothing could be more emblematic of the above than the design of Liberal welfare policy in our nation?
No, not to help the poor....it doesn't.
a. The percentage of those in 'poverty' is roughly the same today, trillions of dollars later, as when the 'War on Poverty' was instituted......a half century later.
b. If they try....Liberal creation has seen to it that as income of the poor rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings.
c. Logic dictates that there must be some ulterior purpose to the program.
d. Oh....and analysis of the welfare reform under Clinton shows that conservative policy changes actually produces better results.....hmmmmm....
1. ".... the most dangerous element of the welfare state is not the fact that it spins up into increasing debt, but rather that it creates citizens who are unfit for democratic self-governance.
2. .... there have been numerous policy changes advocated by conservatives and libertarians ...that help to give more independence to the less fortunate. But ... the Left still operates on the premise that its approach to poverty is more morally sound.
3. The most radical solution to poverty advocated by those on the Right is the elimination of government welfare programs. ... this idea is met with violent opposition from those who fear that people will starve on the streets ....these objectors ignore the obvious fact that there was life before the welfare state.
However, the facts...support the conservative case that people don't have to be forced to be charitable.
a. ...there has always been a consensus in America that there is a duty to take care of the poor.... Unlike today, it was assumed that some people, given the choice to work or not, would choose sloth. This brought the necessity of distinguishing between those who were voluntarily poor and those who were merely affected by circumstance, so that attention could be focused on the temporarily downtrodden.
4... there were numerous charitable organizations ... the largest of which was the mutual aid society... primarily for lower- and middle-class workers, and provided benefits such as life insurance, health insurance, and retirement pensions. ....with particularly high participation rates among African-Americans and immigrants. Mutual aid societies were what Tocqueville had in mind when he praised the American reliance upon associations. Such organizations were a unique feature of democracy, and of people who took it upon themselves to attempt to alleviate the suffering of their neighbors rather than leaving that messy job to the state or to the wealthy.
a. The average life insurance policy of the largest aid societies in 1919 was $1,100, equivalent to the annual salary of the average American worker.
The Masons, for one, established their own old age homes for the elderly, spending an average of $1,800 per resident in 1914.
Aid societies were the largest suppliers of health insurance before the Great Depression, typically offering benefits ranging from $7 to $10 a week in case of illness. Unlike modern HMOs, there was a strong incentive not to cheat the system since false claims were easily recognized....
5. Church-based charity in America has always operated on the premise that the poor need spiritual guidance as much as material comfort, and attempted to provide both.
a. .... the federal job-training programs which have replaced these organizations have been, if anything, counterproductive. A six-year study by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1993 showed that young black males enrolled in federal job training actually had 10.7% lower earnings after the program than a control group that did not participate in job training."
The Yale Free Press
Over and over, Liberal policies have been shown to be detrimental to society, yet remain in perpetuity.
Why?
You dredged up some rightwing student's editorial from 1999 for your daily wisdom?
lol
Truth is truth.
Liberalism is destructive, as this thread so proves.
" .... the most dangerous element of the welfare state is not the fact that it spins up into increasing debt, but rather that it creates citizens who are unfit for democratic self-governance. "
9. "....welfare programs rarely encourage good behavior. For example, AFDC explicitly frowns upon thrift, as recipients are allowed to have only $1,000 in savings in order to remain eligible.
Grace Capetillo, a 36-year-old welfare mother, found this out the hard way after she managed to save up $3,000 over four years, only to be sued by the county of Milwaukee.... the county's request that she pay back the $15,545 she had received since going over the limit. However, she did have to pay a $1,000 fine and spend another $1,000 to get under the savings limit."
The Yale Free Press
10. How, exactly, did Mrs. Capetillo accumulate the vast sum of $3,000 in savings?
a. She had shopped at thrift stores, stocked up on sale items in grocery stores....bought second hand clothes during the summer, and warm-weather outfits during the summer.
b. When her five-year-old daughter's t-shirts grew tight, she simply snipped them under the arms,...
c. When she asked for 'Li'l Miss Make-Up' for Christmas, Mrs. Capetillo didn't pay $19.99 at Toys-R-Us, she found it at Goodwill for $1.89; she cleaned it up and tied it with a pink ribbon.
d. At Goodwill, she found the pieces for Mr. Potato Head, and bought them for seventy-nine cents, saving $3.18.
Her reward from the welfare system was being sued for $14,545.
"The Tragedy of American Compassion," p. 42, by Marvin Olasky
That is the kind of responsibility that the current system penalizes, careful use of one's assets, savings, behaviors that might get one out of the welfare trap......instead the impersonal nature of the welfare system and it's built-in Liberal 'we'll take care of you' structure produce life-long dependency.
The challenge:
what, exactly does this system accomplish outside of enlisting the 'poor' as 'reliable Democrat voters'?
[
Grace Capetillo, a 36-year-old welfare mother, found this out the hard way after she managed to save up $3,000 over four years, only to be sued by the county of Milwaukee.... the county's request that she pay back the $15,545 she had received since going over the limit. However, she did have to pay a $1,000 fine and spend another $1,000 to get under the savings limit."
The Yale Free Press
10. How, exactly, did Mrs. Capetillo accumulate the vast sum of $3,000 in savings?
a. She had shopped at thrift stores, stocked up on sale items in grocery stores....bought second hand clothes during the summer, and warm-weather outfits during the summer.
b. When her five-year-old daughter's t-shirts grew tight, she simply snipped them under the arms,...
c. When she asked for 'Li'l Miss Make-Up' for Christmas, Mrs. Capetillo didn't pay $19.99 at Toys-R-Us, she found it at Goodwill for $1.89; she cleaned it up and tied it with a pink ribbon.
d. At Goodwill, she found the pieces for Mr. Potato Head, and bought them for seventy-nine cents, saving $3.18.
Her reward from the welfare system was being sued for $14,545.
"The Tragedy of American Compassion," p. 42, by Marvin Olasky
That is the kind of responsibility that the current system penalizes, careful use of one's assets, savings, behaviors that might get one out of the welfare trap......instead the impersonal nature of the welfare system and it's built-in Liberal 'we'll take care of you' structure produce life-long dependency.
?
