Failure of the Welfare State

[JoeB131]

"....surfs shouldn't have any rights."

Instructive how the Left cannot win without cheating.....you know this has nothing to do with rights....

.....the 'Second Bill of Rights' was about entitlements.....gifts provided by the Left by taking away the fruits of others' labor.

And this is where you get into horseshit territory.

Making sure of fair wages and fair treatment is not taking away from the fruits of others labors.

The system you champion is based on the unequal division of rewards. Seriously, there is nothing Mitt Romney personally did in his first 50 years of life that meritted his nine-figure fortune. He got it off the labors of others, who didn't get their fair share, and often got the shaft.

Which is not unlike the fuedal lord who lives in his castle while his serfs starved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

The "Second Bill of Rights", part of his 1945 innagural address, was never imposed.

And it had such horrid ideas like universal health care and the right for everyone who wants to work to have a job. The horror of it all.

The funny thing is, going with what FDR wanted to do, we have 30 years of prosperity after the war. then someone decided the rich just didn't have enough, the poor dears, and we've been declining ever since.

I thought you had some sort of 'degree in history..'

The Second Bill of Rights can be found in the SOTU address of 1944.

It promised gifts such as
Employment, with a living wage
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Education
Social security

"... was never imposed..."

WHAT????


Look around! Read a newspaper once in a while!!


Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives hate the limits place on them by the Constitution.
As they could not 'impose' their wishes, they tried to destroy the Constitution instead....


He despised the separation of powers, and checks and balances.

“The notion of judicial supremacy has enabled the progressive elites that now run the country to discard the Framers’ Constitution and replace it with a “living constitution.” The idea of a “living constitution” dates back to the era of Woodrow Wilson, that consummate progressive who described the Constitution as a “vehicle of life.” In Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson says: “As the life of the nation changes so must the interpretation of the document which contains it change, by a nice adjustment, determined, not by the original intention of those who drew the paper, but by the exigencies and the new aspects of life itself.” Elitism and Judicial Supremacy « Public Discourse

Here we see the Supreme Court legitimized as a roving constitutional convention, the interpreter of a ‘living Constitution.’

FDR picked up the red flag and ran with it. Need I mention LBJ?

No matter what you claim... you couldn't be more Left-wing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....surfs shouldn't have any rights."

Instructive how the Left cannot win without cheating.....you know this has nothing to do with rights....

.....the 'Second Bill of Rights' was about entitlements.....gifts provided by the Left by taking away the fruits of others' labor.

And this is where you get into horseshit territory.

Making sure of fair wages and fair treatment is not taking away from the fruits of others labors.

The system you champion is based on the unequal division of rewards. Seriously, there is nothing Mitt Romney personally did in his first 50 years of life that meritted his nine-figure fortune. He got it off the labors of others, who didn't get their fair share, and often got the shaft.

Which is not unlike the fuedal lord who lives in his castle while his serfs starved.

"...unequal division of rewards."



1. Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs).

a. Of course, different folks have different ‘needs,’ and who would not exaggerate his needs in order to gain more governmental largesse?

2. The devil, as usual, is in the details. The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

b. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.

c. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32.


So, in addition to being a Marxist, you are an adolescent....

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....surfs shouldn't have any rights."

Instructive how the Left cannot win without cheating.....you know this has nothing to do with rights....

.....the 'Second Bill of Rights' was about entitlements.....gifts provided by the Left by taking away the fruits of others' labor.

And this is where you get into horseshit territory.

Making sure of fair wages and fair treatment is not taking away from the fruits of others labors.

The system you champion is based on the unequal division of rewards. Seriously, there is nothing Mitt Romney personally did in his first 50 years of life that meritted his nine-figure fortune. He got it off the labors of others, who didn't get their fair share, and often got the shaft.

Which is not unlike the fuedal lord who lives in his castle while his serfs starved.

"Seriously, there is nothing Mitt Romney personally did in his first 50 years of life that meritted his nine-figure fortune. He got it off the labors of others, who didn't get their fair share,..."


I can easily prove that you don't believe the nonsense you spout....

....when was the last time you demanded that a merchant charge you more than his asking price so that he could pay the producer of the merchandise more?

When?

Oh...never.



1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and des correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

a. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!
Mamet, Ibid.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn. Whenever someone points out the inherent unfairness of the current system (a sort of mental retardation only limited to the United States, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way), their usual response is to scream...


EEEEEEEEK MARXISM!!!!!

And then you just can't take them seriously anymore because they are a sick joke.

It always amazes me, it's like going to a KFC slaughterhouse and listen to the Chickens praise all Colonel Sanders has done for them while they are on their way to the blades...

 

[Bfgrn]

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

Yea, surfs shouldn't have any rights.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

"....surfs shouldn't have any rights."

Instructive how the Left cannot win without cheating.....you know this has nothing to do with rights....

.....the 'Second Bill of Rights' was about entitlements.....gifts provided by the Left by taking away the fruits of others' labor.


Being both conservative and civil I avoided the word 'liar,' but you should consider how it applies....

Now, for your edification:


Rights vs entitlement and privilege

“True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.

If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View

The second bill of rights is not about entitlement, it IS the very definition of a 'civil' society. Your social Darwinism is the very definition of the law of the jungle, survival of the wealthiest.

FDR

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

 

[JoeB131]

"Seriously, there is nothing Mitt Romney personally did in his first 50 years of life that meritted his nine-figure fortune. He got it off the labors of others, who didn't get their fair share,..."


I can easily prove that you don't believe the nonsense you spout....

....when was the last time you demanded that a merchant charge you more than his asking price so that he could pay the producer of the merchandise more?

When?

Oh...never.

No, I don't do that. And I'll go one further. I'm a buyer. Most of my job is to find the absolute best price on stuff, and I've fired several vendors when their pricing, quality or service wasn't up to snuff. To quote Michael Corleone, we are all part of the same hypocrisy.

I do, however, try to be fair with people, and I won't do business with folks I consider unethical in their practices...

When I personally go shopping, I check where things were made, and I'll pay a dollar or two more for something made in the US compared to some shithole like China. We used to call that being an American when I was a kid.

 

[Neotrotsky]

"....surfs shouldn't have any rights."

Instructive how the Left cannot win without cheating.....you know this has nothing to do with rights....

.....the 'Second Bill of Rights' was about entitlements.....gifts provided by the Left by taking away the fruits of others' labor.

And this is where you get into horseshit territory.

Making sure of fair wages and fair treatment is not taking away from the fruits of others labors.

The system you champion is based on the unequal division of rewards. Seriously, there is nothing Mitt Romney personally did in his first 50 years of life that meritted his nine-figure fortune. He got it off the labors of others, who didn't get their fair share, and often got the shaft.

Which is not unlike the fuedal lord who lives in his castle while his serfs starved.

"fair share" ?
What the Labour Theory of Value- again?
Debunked a long time ago

really what is that- perhaps the gov't should take people's
whole check and give them back what they think is fair


The system we have now is crony capitalism or state capitalism not a free market

Systems that stratify society helping to create a modern "feudal like" society
making it harder if not impossible to move within the different levels of wealth and
even more dependent on the gov't.

It is created by the gov't and business working in collusion to achieve their
goals- profits and non competition for the business and power and votes for the
politician to keep them in power.

A good gov't is one that promotes free market and competition
The US has not had that for a long time

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yawn. Whenever someone points out the inherent unfairness of the current system (a sort of mental retardation only limited to the United States, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way), their usual response is to scream...


EEEEEEEEK MARXISM!!!!!

And then you just can't take them seriously anymore because they are a sick joke.

It always amazes me, it's like going to a KFC slaughterhouse and listen to the Chickens praise all Colonel Sanders has done for them while they are on their way to the blades...

"...you just can't take them seriously anymore..."

Flimsy excuse.

You can't rebut.....what I said is the truth.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn. Whenever someone points out the inherent unfairness of the current system (a sort of mental retardation only limited to the United States, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way), their usual response is to scream...


EEEEEEEEK MARXISM!!!!!

And then you just can't take them seriously anymore because they are a sick joke.

It always amazes me, it's like going to a KFC slaughterhouse and listen to the Chickens praise all Colonel Sanders has done for them while they are on their way to the blades...

"...you just can't take them seriously anymore..."

Flimsy excuse.

You can't rebut.....what I said is the truth.

Words that disqualify you from any reasonable argument.

Communist. Marxist. Socialist.

Once those words pop up in a rebuttal, you are no longer a serious contender for my time. Sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

It is created by the gov't and business working in collusion to achieve their
goals- profits and non competition for the business and power and votes for the
politician to keep them in power.

A good gov't is one that promotes free market and competition
The US has not had that for a long time

Free markets by themselves don't work. We are the last industrialized country that even tries to do it that way.

Japan and The EU countries have heavy unionization and tight co-operation between industry and government. They do not buy into a social Darwnist economic model, because they are ultimately self-defeating.

China is creeping up in our rear view mirror because they have an aggressive state run industrialization.

We seem to think that hey, as long as the Mitt Romneys get their car elevators, everything is fine.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yawn. Whenever someone points out the inherent unfairness of the current system (a sort of mental retardation only limited to the United States, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way), their usual response is to scream...


EEEEEEEEK MARXISM!!!!!

And then you just can't take them seriously anymore because they are a sick joke.

It always amazes me, it's like going to a KFC slaughterhouse and listen to the Chickens praise all Colonel Sanders has done for them while they are on their way to the blades...

"...you just can't take them seriously anymore..."

Flimsy excuse.

You can't rebut.....what I said is the truth.

Words that disqualify you from any reasonable argument.

Communist. Marxist. Socialist.

Once those words pop up in a rebuttal, you are no longer a serious contender for my time. Sorry.

I wouldn't agree

The covering or diffusion of meanings for those words
has been a powerful tool for the left

In fact, promoting ignorance on the true meaning of those words
is a strength for them

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

If you can demonstrate how things would be better if there were no poverty programs, then by all means do so.

No food stamps, no Medicaid, no cash assistance, no housing subsidies/assistance, no student assistance, no increases in the minimum wage, no EIC, etc.,

...show us how poor/low income Americans would be better off.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What I want to dispute is the know anything!

I'm astounded that you can frequently find you way back to that refrigerator box you call home.

You spelled 'No, I can't' wrong.

Guess you don't realize that your trying to change the subject is an admission of defeat...


You’re the proof that most people with low self-esteem have earned it.

You can't dispute the following:

The Reagan 'boom' was fueled by

1. the natural rebound of a business cycle coming out of the worst recession since the depression.

2. the dramatic shift in Fed interest rate policy that dramatically drove down interest rates

3. the steep decline in oil prices.

4. the stimulative effect of Reagan's profligate deficit spending.

Nor can anyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yawn. Whenever someone points out the inherent unfairness of the current system (a sort of mental retardation only limited to the United States, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way), their usual response is to scream...


EEEEEEEEK MARXISM!!!!!

And then you just can't take them seriously anymore because they are a sick joke.

It always amazes me, it's like going to a KFC slaughterhouse and listen to the Chickens praise all Colonel Sanders has done for them while they are on their way to the blades...

"...you just can't take them seriously anymore..."

Flimsy excuse.

You can't rebut.....what I said is the truth.

Words that disqualify you from any reasonable argument.

Communist. Marxist. Socialist.

Once those words pop up in a rebuttal, you are no longer a serious contender for my time. Sorry.

Hit a nerve, did I?

OK....see ya'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone ever name a nation that is NOT a 'welfare state' that is doing better than the United States?

I'm guessing 'no' is the answer.

This is the fundamental problem with conservatism. Conservatives complain about progressive policies and conditions that they label 'failures' and yet,

they have nothing better to offer.

Since poverty didn't disappear completely because of liberal poverty programs, that must mean 'failure', and yet the conservative 'answer' is,

eliminate all help to the poor, make them poorer, and somehow, by some secret magic process, never known to occur ever in the history of human society,

poverty WILL disappear completely.

Apparently, to be a conservative, you have to believe that sort of rubbish.

The Conservative motto should be,

We have no solutions, but put us in power as punishment of the Liberals for not being Perfect.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

If you can demonstrate how things would be better if there were no poverty programs, then by all means do so.

No food stamps, no Medicaid, no cash assistance, no housing subsidies/assistance, no student assistance, no increases in the minimum wage, no EIC, etc.,

...show us how poor/low income Americans would be better off.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claim.

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

 

[JoeB131]

"...you just can't take them seriously anymore..."

Flimsy excuse.

You can't rebut.....what I said is the truth.

Words that disqualify you from any reasonable argument.

Communist. Marxist. Socialist.

Once those words pop up in a rebuttal, you are no longer a serious contender for my time. Sorry.

Hit a nerve, did I?

OK....see ya'.

Yeah, it's the nerve that gets annoyed when butt-kissers justify their butt-kissing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Did anyone ever name a nation that is NOT a 'welfare state' that is doing better than the United States?

I'm guessing 'no' is the answer.

This is the fundamental problem with conservatism. Conservatives complain about progressive policies and conditions that they label 'failures' and yet,

they have nothing better to offer.

Since poverty didn't disappear completely because of liberal poverty programs, that must mean 'failure', and yet the conservative 'answer' is,

eliminate all help to the poor, make them poorer, and somehow, by some secret magic process, never known to occur ever in the history of human society,

poverty WILL disappear completely.

Apparently, to be a conservative, you have to believe that sort of rubbish.

The Conservative motto should be,

We have no solutions, but put us in power as punishment of the Liberals for not being Perfect.

So your system really sucks but lets stay with it


No ideas- not really
some have suggested the negative income tax
interesting idea

Granted, it might eliminate the permanent co-dependency between the
poor and the Democrats

But no doubt that is a sacrifice you are willing to make



Truth is hard for the Left

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone ever name a nation that is NOT a 'welfare state' that is doing better than the United States?

I'm guessing 'no' is the answer.

This is the fundamental problem with conservatism. Conservatives complain about progressive policies and conditions that they label 'failures' and yet,

they have nothing better to offer.

Since poverty didn't disappear completely because of liberal poverty programs, that must mean 'failure', and yet the conservative 'answer' is,

eliminate all help to the poor, make them poorer, and somehow, by some secret magic process, never known to occur ever in the history of human society,

poverty WILL disappear completely.

Apparently, to be a conservative, you have to believe that sort of rubbish.

The Conservative motto should be,

We have no solutions, but put us in power as punishment of the Liberals for not being Perfect.

So your system really sucks but lets stay with it


No ideas- not really
some have suggested the negative income tax
interesting idea

Granted, it might eliminate the permanent co-dependency between the
poor and the Democrats

But no doubt that is a sacrifice you are willing to make



Truth is hard for the Left

Once again, you offer no better alternative.