Extra! Infants Win The Election!

[NoNukes]

I never dreamed that, in my lifetime, I'd see the majority of the electorate volunteer to be infantilized, as Tocqueville predicted:

1. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “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.”


The same, written more recently:

2. “Before the ‘tipping point,’ Americans remain independent and take responsibility for their own well-being. Once we have gone beyond the "tipping point," that self-sufficient outlook will be gradually transformed into a soft despotism a lot like Europe's social welfare states. Soft despotism isn't cruel or mean, it's kindly and sympathetic. It doesn't help anyone take charge of life, but it does keep everyone in a happy state of childhood. A growing centralized bureaucracy will provide for everyone's needs, care for everyone's heath, direct everyone's career, arrange everyone's important private affairs, and work for everyone's pleasure. The only hitch is, government must be the sole supplier of everyone's happiness ... the shepherd over this flock of sheep.” RealClearPolitics - Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?




And, from "A Nation of Moochers: America's Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing," by Charles J. Sykes:

3. To be on the wrong side of the ‘tipping point,’ one loses self-respect, independence, and ultimately, freedom: dependency changes one’s relationship with government, as one must cling to a sense of victimhood and incapacity. Compare that to the other side, the belief that the average American is competent to navigate his own life; that parents are capable of raising their own children; that most Americans are fully able to pursue happiness with only an occasional helping hand. For example, the GI Bill was underpinned by the well-founded assumption that given a chance at a college education, the Greatest Generation would be able to take advantage of the opportunity…and it was!


4. For the Left, there is the Assumption of Incompetence….unable, incapable, incompetent. The nanny is caring, compassionate….but smothering. Basically, it’s motto is ‘We care so much about you, that we’ll take over from here and run your life for you.” Appearing to be compassion, the Assumption of Incompetence actually treats ‘clients’ with a mixture of pity and contempt. Ibid.



5. A dedication to the Obama voters:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
"The Hollow Men," TS Eliot

You lost, you proved that you have no idea what you are talking about, deal with it.

 

[Jroc]

No it wasn't.

You found it so because it was written for adults.

LOL

18 posts and nobody has bothered to read your drivel

Where are all your conservative toadies telling you that you are right even though they have no fucking idea what you are talking about

daveman....are you out there?

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

 

[NoNukes]

Another rambling unsubstantiated cut and paste


Thank you PC....that was super interesting

No it wasn't.

You found it so because it was written for adults.

Did you find it on mom and dad's computer?

 

[rightwinger]

You found it so because it was written for adults.

LOL

18 posts and nobody has bothered to read your drivel

Where are all your conservative toadies telling you that you are right even though they have no fucking idea what you are talking about

daveman....are you out there?

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

 

[Jroc]

LOL

18 posts and nobody has bothered to read your drivel

Where are all your conservative toadies telling you that you are right even though they have no fucking idea what you are talking about

daveman....are you out there?

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps ande get a job, you loser!

Common sense idiot do you have any idea what you’re talking about? I grew up in Detroit I see it, people are stuck in endless cycle of dependency. Look at my city now... A liberal "utopia"

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL

18 posts and nobody has bothered to read your drivel
U
Where are all your conservative toadies telling you that you are right even though they have no fucking idea what you are talking about

daveman....are you out there?

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps ande get a job, you loser!

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

 

[rightwinger]

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps ande get a job, you loser!

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps ande get a job, you loser!

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

Define "the poor" because imho poor people don't have cars, cell phones, televisions etc.

 

[Jroc]

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps ande get a job, you loser!

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

What is your backround? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Ever?

Welfare Reform, Success or Failure? It Worked

It has been 10 years since the welfare reform law was signed by President Clinton amid predictions of disaster from the left. Information reported by states, by the U.S. Census Bureau, and by researchers yields a coherent picture of the broad effects of the 1996 reforms.



Observational research conducted by Irene Lurie and her colleagues at the State University of New York shows that welfare case workers now consistently implement state policies designed to discourage families from relying on welfare by mandating employment-related activities and then by ensuring that clients participate in these activities. These changes constitute a revolution in social policy.

What has been the effect of these major changes? Welfare caseloads began declining in the spring of 1994 and picked up steam after the federal legislation was enacted in 1996. Between 1994 and 2004, the caseload declined about 60 percent, a decline that is without precedent. The percentage of U.S. children on welfare is now lower than it has been since at least 1970.

But are the mothers who leave (oravoid) welfare able to find work? More than 40 studies conducted by states since 1996 show that about 60 percent of the adults leaving welfare are employed at any given moment and that, over a period of several months, about 80 percent hold at least one job. Even more impressive, national data from the Census Bureau show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent. Moreover, employment among never-married mothers, the most disadvantaged and least-educated subgroup of single mothers, grew from 44 percent to 66 percent, an increase of 50 percent, over the same period. Again, these sweeping changes are unprecedented.

What about income? Census Bureau data show that in 1993, earnings accounted forabout 30 percent of the income of low-income mother-headed families while welfare payments accounted for nearly 55 percent. By 2000, this pattern had reversed: earnings had leaped by an astounding 136 percent to constitute almost 57 percent of income while welfare income had plummeted by nearly half to constitute only about 23 percent of income.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2006/03/15welfare-haskins

 

[rightwinger]

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

Define "the poor" because imho poor people don't have cars, cell phones, televisions etc.

Typical right wing

You can't be poor if you have a cell phone. Poor people must suffer before conservatives will acknowledge them

Cell phones are cheap, a used car is cheap, you can pick up a color tv on the side of the road.

What costs money is rent, electricity, food, medical care, prescription drugs, car repairs. THAT is where they are poor

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL

18 posts and nobody has bothered to read your drivel

Where are all your conservative toadies telling you that you are right even though they have no fucking idea what you are talking about

daveman....are you out there?

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

OMG!!
Wouldya’ look at who jumped into the thread!!!

Curly! And Moe!!! And even Shemp!!

Oh, gee….I must have mislead them by using the word ‘Infants’ in the title…and they thought I was calling them!!

Wow.




Actually, fellas, I was posting for adults….
And if adults had opposed it the way you sucklings tried to….they would have answered the indictments in the OP…



These:
1. “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” And, as all the whiners are ‘reliable Democrat voters,’ they couldn’t argue that they aren’t in favor of a big bovernment, a ‘daddy’ to take care of them,…..could they?
Nope….


2. And this: “the sole arbiter of that happiness…’
Sure enough, the Obamanauts are admitting that providing for their own happiness is beyond them. Sad.

a. Heck….I could have added this from Tocqueville, as well: the Big Government is there to “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”
But…read their posts and one can see that ‘thinking’ is beyond them as well.



4. And where was the rebuttal for the Paul Ryan remark: ““Before the ‘tipping point,’ Americans remain independent and take responsibility for their own well-being.”
No rebuttal….’cause they can’t deny the truth of the charge!!



5. And since there was no response to Sykes’s insult: “ To be on the wrong side of the ‘tipping point,’ one loses self-respect, independence, and ultimately, freedom: dependency changes one’s relationship with government, as one must cling to a sense of victimhood and incapacity…” sure enough…these dunces verify the points....for the 'reliable Democrat voter,' dependency is a good thing!

a. And here, Sykes explains why they are Obama voters: “For the Left, there is the Assumption of Incompetence….unable, incapable, incompetent.” Birds of a feather flock together!
They're incompetent....so they vote for an incompetent.


Instead…all the dim-wits were capable of was a series of posts that can be distilled down to “I hate you, I hate you, and I hate you!”
Can’t tell you what an effect that had on me.



Of course…I didn’t expect the Lefties to know TS Eliot….so here is a bit more poetry to stick in their craw:

Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,
Horatius at the Bridge by Lord Macaulay




In summary….based on the responses from the Left…..sure enough:

INFANTS WON THE ELECTION!

 

[PoliticalChic]

No it wasn't.

You found it so because it was written for adults.

Did you find it on mom and dad's computer?

Feeling left out, NoNoodles?

I took care of you in post #31.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL

18 posts and nobody has bothered to read your drivel

Where are all your conservative toadies telling you that you are right even though they have no fucking idea what you are talking about

daveman....are you out there?

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

Well, then....

Allow me to prove his point:


1. With government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.

See...that's what 'losing one's motivation' means.



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

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

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


Here....since you complain that my posts are too long...let me shorten it for you:
You, and all the infants who believe the 'Big Government will take care of you' nonsense are fools.

Provably so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistancie to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

Define "the poor" because imho poor people don't have cars, cell phones, televisions etc.

Typical right wing

You can't be poor if you have a cell phone. Poor people must suffer before conservatives will acknowledge them

Cell phones are cheap, a used car is cheap, you can pick up a color tv on the side of the road.

What costs money is rent, electricity, food, medical care, prescription drugs, car repairs. THAT is where they are poor

Gotcha one choosing luxuries like cell phones at the expense of necessities like rent is the definition of poor

 

[rightwinger]

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

Well, then....

Allow me to prove his point:


1. With government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.

See...that's what 'losing one's motivation' means.



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

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

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


Here....since you complain that my posts are too long...let me shorten it for you:
You, and all the infants who believe the 'Big Government will take care of you' nonsense are fools.

Provably so.

and she thinks anyone reads this shit?

 

[rightwinger]

Define "the poor" because imho poor people don't have cars, cell phones, televisions etc.

Typical right wing

You can't be poor if you have a cell phone. Poor people must suffer before conservatives will acknowledge them

Cell phones are cheap, a used car is cheap, you can pick up a color tv on the side of the road.

What costs money is rent, electricity, food, medical care, prescription drugs, car repairs. THAT is where they are poor

Gotcha one choosing luxuries like cell phones at the expense of necessities like rent is the definition of poor

Cell Phone $30 a month
Rent $1000 a month

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps ande get a job, you loser!

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

That's a fib.


[President Grover ]Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises.

Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.'

He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

Well, then....

Allow me to prove his point:


1. With government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.

See...that's what 'losing one's motivation' means.



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

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

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


Here....since you complain that my posts are too long...let me shorten it for you:
You, and all the infants who believe the 'Big Government will take care of you' nonsense are fools.

Provably so.

and she thinks anyone reads this shit?

I agree....that's the best defense you have against the truth.
Stick to it!

 

[Rshermr]

You idiot, you're too stupid to realize that people who depend on the government lose their motivation to better themselves. The government doesn't give a shit about you, it exists to feed the bureaucracy and sustain itself

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

Well, then....

Allow me to prove his point:


1. With government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.

See...that's what 'losing one's motivation' means.



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

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

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


Here....since you complain that my posts are too long...let me shorten it for you:
You, and all the infants who believe the 'Big Government will take care of you' nonsense are fools.

Provably so.

And so, politichic, being a con tool, continues to continue. Just dogma. Nothing new. Just got badly spanked by an election, but nothing learned. Just keeps posting con dogma. Cut n paste, cut n paste. Say the words. Never, ever, ever argue economic issues. Because if you do, you get crushed. Because you know nothing. You are just a con tool.
Con tools are also known as non-feedback organisms. The human experience has required feedback to be considered, and the mind changes with the information. But cons are non-feedback organisms. Like politicalchic. no need to consider that nasty feedback, or other points of view.

 

[L.K.Eder]

grow some bain cells.


hahahahahhaha