Crushing Liberal Policies

[Kosh]

Crushing the far left would do more for this country more than anything else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
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.

?

That's a delightful story.

The part you leave out is that if conservatives had their way, that woman wouldn't have been getting welfare in the first place,

and would have been really poor.

As usual with one of your ilk, when confronted with facts that indict your worldview....

...you simply lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even though the term 'poverty' had real meaning during those times, unlike today, those who were truly destitute was a far, far smaller proportion than the group we so identify today.

Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies.

a. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty....



And again: as the failure of the Liberal system is clear and evident....how to explain its endorsement???


Are Liberals really, really stupid....

....or is there some other design, not one aimed at alleviating poverty?

 

[Erand7899]

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.” 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.

You prove the point that changing the meanings of words is the only way that liberal/socialists can avoid actually confronting the contradictions in their political dogma.

Poverty means that the unit (single or family) does not have the ability to provide all the basic necessities of life without assistance from others.

Liberal/Socialist government policies have helped few, if any, out of poverty, they have just provided the additional assistance required to boost the unit above the poverty line. These programs do not differentiate between those in poverty because of circumstances beyond their control, or whether they are self induced by sloth, drugs, alcohol, or other detrimental character traits.

Liberal/Socialists are so afraid that some of these people might escape the poverty/welfare cycle, (and quit voting Democrat) they continue to sweeten the pot to keep them dependent upon government. At the same time, they continue the drumbeat that the system cannot be beat, and that the rich are to blame for the problems of the poor.

Like most scams, it works to some degree, but I would not be proud to be a part of it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I hate to tell you this political chic but welfare is here to stay. .

Bank robbers will always be with us, too.

Does that mean they are a GOOD thing? And that we shouldn't work constnatly to get rid of them?

 

[Little-Acorn]

What do conservatives ever do to reduce the numbers of people who need the programs?

Start businesses, take huge risks, and create jobs. What do liberals do?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I just proved you have no better ideas.

By gutting the work requirements in President Clinton’s signature welfare reform law, President Obama is admitting his economic policies have failed.

“While President Clinton worked with Congress in a bipartisan way on welfare reform and economic opportunity, President Obama has routinely ignored Republican proposals, rejected House-passed jobs bills, and imposed an agenda that’s helped keep the unemployment rate above eight percent for 41 months. Instead of working with Republicans to boost job creation, the president is simply disregarding the requirement that welfare recipients find work.

“[Republican] Welfare reform was an historic, bipartisan success – this move by the Obama administration is a partisan disgrace.”
Obama to Clinton welfare reform: Drop dead - Right Turn - The Washington Post

 

[Erand7899]

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?

The poor would get their healthcare the same way they got it before Medicaid existed.

Medicaid was necessary because of the way that government screwed up Medicare, and drove medical costs through the roof.

The standard Liberal/Socialist progression toward ultimate disaster. Devise a program to help a segment of the population. Screw up the implementation and drive up costs for all, then design new programs in an attempt to fix what they caused in the first place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Republicans dragged Clinton into reform, insisting that folks work in order to receive support.

It worked, just as conservatives promised it would.


This reverses the policy put in place by President Bill Clinton when he signed the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, often referred to as the welfare-reform act. Since 1996, welfare caseloads have plummeted by 70 percent—8.8 million people off the rolls, which today are down to 3.8 million.

“Debra Autry had been out of work and on public assistance for more than two decades.

Like many recipients, she was a single mother with three kids at home and was skeptical about working in the private sector, so the state placed her in a publicly subsidized program that had her cleaning government offices in exchange for her benefits.

Disliking the work, Autry landed a cashier’s job at a local Revco drugstore, arranging her hours around her children’s school day. After the CVS chain bought out Revco, she enrolled in the company’s program to learn how to become a pharmacy technician and eventually began working in that position, which typically pays between $25 and $30 per hour. Autry’s hard work inspired her children.

Her daughter just earned a degree as a physical therapist, while one son is in college and another is working full-time. “I was on welfare because there were no jobs that interested me,” she recalls. ‘But once I had to go back to work, I realized there’s a future if you want to better yourself. It was the best decision I ever made.’ ”
Welfare Reform, Phase Two by Steven Malanga, City Journal Winter 2009




Along came the community organizer, who did away with the work requirement.

Don't tell me you voted for that!

 

[PoliticalChic]

What do conservatives ever do to reduce the numbers of people who need the programs?

Start businesses, take huge risks, and create jobs. What do liberals do?

"What do liberals do?"


They design a system that's like fly-paper.




1. Liberals have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape!

There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
Covered in chapter five of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”




b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69.

This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month.

As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)”
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap



So......do Liberals want folks to work their way off the dole?

Clearly, not.