To help people, you're advocating a government that's spent trillions fighting poverty without denting poverty rates and created an economically crippling massive welfare state that fosters dependency. I'm advocating the population and charities of the greatest, most generous population in the world. You're also advocating a solution that we in fact know isn't working. Yes, I stand by that.This is the justification the Democratic party uses for their socialistic policies. But if you look at the actual results of the policy it tells a very different story. I have no doubt you wanted this to happen when you voted for them. But you are responsible for the fact that it's harming both the country and the people these policies were intended to help and you look the other way and continue to vote for itA liberal is a champion of the downtrodded. This usually comes from experience with the government and had them help them when they were down and out on their luck, they want to have those programs around so when others are down on their luck, they will have somewhere to go.
A conservative wants to believe that someone is poor because they don't work hard or are losers. They want to ensure no one has any help whatsoever and uses religion as a backdrop to control people's lives.
But anyone who is smart enough to understand that without government programs, chaos would erupt. You would be a democrat. We don't have a lot of smart people in this country.
Then let's turn poor health among people who can't afford medical assistance, monthy food allocations for people who are unemployed (or too poor), housing assistance for the millions who would otherwise be on the streets, etc., over to organized charities and well-intentioned more affluent individuals and see how long such righteous intentions last.
It's not that the government social programs haven't overreached; they have. The problem is how to fix it, not to deny people and suddenly set them free to survive at the whim of do-gooders.