The Basic Democrat Program

[DGS49]

Let us suppose that a robber takes out his gun one night and proceeds to rob a dozen people along one side of a street, taking from them all of the cash they are holding.

Then he walks down the other side of the street and gives a small handfull of the stolen cash to a dozen (apparently) homeless people, keeping half of the proceeds for himself.

After being arrested he pleads with the magistrate, saying "How can I be punished when I did so much good for so many needy people?" He brings in witnesses - the people to whom he gave cash - to testify about how much the money benefitted them, and how much worse off they would be if they hadn't received that cash. Indeed, they tell the magistrate that the robber should be permitted to continue his nightly activities forever, because it does so much good among the needy.

This little vignette is basically the Democrats' Program for America. By force of law, they take money from the productive members of society, then they dole out a tiny portion of it to "those in need," (as they define it). And they keep a large portion of the stolen money to sustain a mountainous bureaucracy of government employees who also "know which side of the bread is buttered." With each new program - no matter how large or small - they create a new constituency of people who are now dependant on Government for some "vital" need (that they managed to fill somehow before the program existed). And they add another small army of bureaucrats to run the program and make sure nobody "cheats."

Listen to the dialog recently about the implementation of "Obamacare." The Democrat politicians from the President on down are all trumpeting the FACT (it can't be argued, actually) that many millions of people will BENEFIT from this program. These are the people who were considered high risk or who had the dreaded "pre-existing conditions," and the people who would have wanted to employ doctors for their routine care but never did because they didn't want to pay for it.

But the politicians artfully omit the FACT that the program is costing EVERYONE ELSE - the tens of millions of people who already have coverage - a lot more in premiums and higher deductibles. They omit the fact that there will now be millions of healthy young people who truly have no need of health insurance, who will be forced to buy it, because (the justification is) a tiny percentage of them will have some medical catastrophe that they will not be able to pay for with their own resources.

Consider also the huge expansion of the Food Stamp rolls. The criteria for receiving food stamps was greatly liberalized during Obama's first term, as a TEMPORARY measure, and now we have twice as many people getting food stamps as there were when Our Beloved President was elected. And the Democrats in Congress tell us that we can't scale back now -even though the program was TEMPORARY - because there are a lot of people now who depend on them.

More people sucking at the Government's capacious teats. More people who know that Democrats are more likely to continue the flow of milk & honey than Republicans.

Who is representing the taxpayers in all of this? Ted Cruz? Anyone else? Could it be those evil "Tea Party" bastards?

 

[Nosmo King]

If that little fairie tale is a 'fair' description of what you consider the Democrat program for easing suffering here in modern America, could this tale be a 'fair' description of the Tea Party plan?

Let the poor die in their beds or in the streets if they have no bed. They are of no consequence to me. Should privation become so severe that my pocketbook is affected, cull the herd so we suffer no more pleas for help for the helpless.

Take away any vestige of subsidized healthcare. Let the insurance companies deny coverage to the infirmed as it is their right to do so. Should a family be forced into bankruptcy due to an illness, so be it as it does not concern me in the least.

It is absolutely necessary to substitute the word 'negotiate' for the word 'capitulation' just so it appears we may be reasonable politicians. It may also be absolutely necessary to shut down the federal government and cost the economy $24 billion dollars and even vote to crash the national credit just to make a political point. It's how we roll.

Eventually, the standard of living here in America will plunge due to the number of indigent. Eventually the economy will grind to a halt because the federal dollars going into that system (thus promoting the exchange of capital for goods and services) has been effectively cut off. Eventually the wealthiest few will control the economic destiny of everyone else, but we accept that because we believe that we too will become part of that tiny minority.

But those are consequences we Tae Party Republicans are willing to accept because, as P.T. Barnum once said, you'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of people.

 

[Londoner]

Let us suppose that a robber takes out his gun one night and proceeds to rob a dozen people along one side of a street, taking from them all of the cash they are holding.

Then he walks down the other side of the street and gives a small handfull of the stolen cash to a dozen (apparently) homeless people, keeping half of the proceeds for himself.

After being arrested he pleads with the magistrate, saying "How can I be punished when I did so much good for so many needy people?" He brings in witnesses - the people to whom he gave cash - to testify about how much the money benefitted them, and how much worse off they would be if they hadn't received that cash. Indeed, they tell the magistrate that the robber should be permitted to continue his nightly activities forever, because it does so much good among the needy.

This little vignette is basically the Democrats' Program for America. By force of law, they take money from the productive members of society, then they dole out a tiny portion of it to "those in need," (as they define it). And they keep a large portion of the stolen money to sustain a mountainous bureaucracy of government employees who also "know which side of the bread is buttered." With each new program - no matter how large or small - they create a new constituency of people who are now dependant on Government for some "vital" need (that they managed to fill somehow before the program existed). And they add another small army of bureaucrats to run the program and make sure nobody "cheats."

Listen to the dialog recently about the implementation of "Obamacare." The Democrat politicians from the President on down are all trumpeting the FACT (it can't be argued, actually) that many millions of people will BENEFIT from this program. These are the people who were considered high risk or who had the dreaded "pre-existing conditions," and the people who would have wanted to employ doctors for their routine care but never did because they didn't want to pay for it.

But the politicians artfully omit the FACT that the program is costing EVERYONE ELSE - the tens of millions of people who already have coverage - a lot more in premiums and higher deductibles. They omit the fact that there will now be millions of healthy young people who truly have no need of health insurance, who will be forced to buy it, because (the justification is) a tiny percentage of them will have some medical catastrophe that they will not be able to pay for with their own resources.

Consider also the huge expansion of the Food Stamp rolls. The criteria for receiving food stamps was greatly liberalized during Obama's first term, as a TEMPORARY measure, and now we have twice as many people getting food stamps as there were when Our Beloved President was elected. And the Democrats in Congress tell us that we can't scale back now -even though the program was TEMPORARY - because there are a lot of people now who depend on them.

More people sucking at the Government's capacious teats. More people who know that Democrats are more likely to continue the flow of milk & honey than Republicans.

Who is representing the taxpayers in all of this? Ted Cruz? Anyone else? Could it be those evil "Tea Party" bastards?

False. The wealthy have turned the Government into a subsidy and bailout machine. The entire premise of lobbying is to go to Washington for money and regulatory favors. A portion of the profits are poured into the propaganda machine to distract the stupid with the same old Randian garbage about welfare queens.

If the OP had moral courage he would stop cutting and pasting for dear leader and admit who receives the bulk of the welfare in the country, which is run by and for the special interests which fund elections and staff government.

Follow money. During the last crisis the Government bailed out the lenders and foreclosed on the poor.

The taxpayer pays to defend Exxon's oil fields in Iraq; while the entire telecom industry profits wildly from satellite technology developed by the State Sector - socialize the costs and privatize the profits = corporate welfare.

John Galt is the welfare queen, and he has spent the last 30 years shipping American jobs to Communist China so he could benefit from sweat shop labor.

The OP is hack repeating propaganda that only tells half the story.

 

[The Rabbi]

If that little fairie tale is a 'fair' description of what you consider the Democrat program for easing suffering here in modern America, could this tale be a 'fair' description of the Tea Party plan?

Let the poor die in their beds or in the streets if they have no bed. They are of no consequence to me. Should privation become so severe that my pocketbook is affected, cull the herd so we suffer no more pleas for help for the helpless.

Take away any vestige of subsidized healthcare. Let the insurance companies deny coverage to the infirmed as it is their right to do so. Should a family be forced into bankruptcy due to an illness, so be it as it does not concern me in the least.

It is absolutely necessary to substitute the word 'negotiate' for the word 'capitulation' just so it appears we may be reasonable politicians. It may also be absolutely necessary to shut down the federal government and cost the economy $24 billion dollars and even vote to crash the national credit just to make a political point. It's how we roll.

Eventually, the standard of living here in America will plunge due to the number of indigent. Eventually the economy will grind to a halt because the federal dollars going into that system (thus promoting the exchange of capital for goods and services) has been effectively cut off. Eventually the wealthiest few will control the economic destiny of everyone else, but we accept that because we believe that we too will become part of that tiny minority.

But those are consequences we Tae Party Republicans are willing to accept because, as P.T. Barnum once said, you'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of people.

No one has gone broke underestimating your stupidity.
Do you really think the GOP or even the TP is in favor of dismantling every charitable or helping program?
The truth is that Democratic programs have a 40 year history of failure leading to increased dependence. You would have to be terminally brain dead to believe doing more of the same is helping anyone. Of course since you are terminally brain dead you do probably believe this.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let us suppose that a robber takes out his gun one night and proceeds to rob a dozen people along one side of a street, taking from them all of the cash they are holding.

Then he walks down the other side of the street and gives a small handfull of the stolen cash to a dozen (apparently) homeless people, keeping half of the proceeds for himself.

After being arrested he pleads with the magistrate, saying "How can I be punished when I did so much good for so many needy people?" He brings in witnesses - the people to whom he gave cash - to testify about how much the money benefitted them, and how much worse off they would be if they hadn't received that cash. Indeed, they tell the magistrate that the robber should be permitted to continue his nightly activities forever, because it does so much good among the needy.

This little vignette is basically the Democrats' Program for America. By force of law, they take money from the productive members of society, then they dole out a tiny portion of it to "those in need," (as they define it). And they keep a large portion of the stolen money to sustain a mountainous bureaucracy of government employees who also "know which side of the bread is buttered." With each new program - no matter how large or small - they create a new constituency of people who are now dependant on Government for some "vital" need (that they managed to fill somehow before the program existed). And they add another small army of bureaucrats to run the program and make sure nobody "cheats."

Listen to the dialog recently about the implementation of "Obamacare." The Democrat politicians from the President on down are all trumpeting the FACT (it can't be argued, actually) that many millions of people will BENEFIT from this program. These are the people who were considered high risk or who had the dreaded "pre-existing conditions," and the people who would have wanted to employ doctors for their routine care but never did because they didn't want to pay for it.

But the politicians artfully omit the FACT that the program is costing EVERYONE ELSE - the tens of millions of people who already have coverage - a lot more in premiums and higher deductibles. They omit the fact that there will now be millions of healthy young people who truly have no need of health insurance, who will be forced to buy it, because (the justification is) a tiny percentage of them will have some medical catastrophe that they will not be able to pay for with their own resources.

Consider also the huge expansion of the Food Stamp rolls. The criteria for receiving food stamps was greatly liberalized during Obama's first term, as a TEMPORARY measure, and now we have twice as many people getting food stamps as there were when Our Beloved President was elected. And the Democrats in Congress tell us that we can't scale back now -even though the program was TEMPORARY - because there are a lot of people now who depend on them.

More people sucking at the Government's capacious teats. More people who know that Democrats are more likely to continue the flow of milk & honey than Republicans.

Who is representing the taxpayers in all of this? Ted Cruz? Anyone else? Could it be those evil "Tea Party" bastards?

False. The wealthy have turned the Government into a subsidy and bailout machine. The entire premise of lobbying is to go to Washington for money and regulatory favors. A portion of the profits are poured into the propaganda machine to distract the stupid with the same old Randian garbage about welfare queens.

If the OP had moral courage he would stop cutting and pasting for dear leader and admit who receives the bulk of the welfare in the country, which is run by and for the special interests which fund elections and staff government.

Your'e right. Those union thugs and rich environmentalists have weaseled themselves sweet deals.
It's suckers like you that fall for it and enable it though.

 

[Nosmo King]

If that little fairie tale is a 'fair' description of what you consider the Democrat program for easing suffering here in modern America, could this tale be a 'fair' description of the Tea Party plan?

Let the poor die in their beds or in the streets if they have no bed. They are of no consequence to me. Should privation become so severe that my pocketbook is affected, cull the herd so we suffer no more pleas for help for the helpless.

Take away any vestige of subsidized healthcare. Let the insurance companies deny coverage to the infirmed as it is their right to do so. Should a family be forced into bankruptcy due to an illness, so be it as it does not concern me in the least.

It is absolutely necessary to substitute the word 'negotiate' for the word 'capitulation' just so it appears we may be reasonable politicians. It may also be absolutely necessary to shut down the federal government and cost the economy $24 billion dollars and even vote to crash the national credit just to make a political point. It's how we roll.

Eventually, the standard of living here in America will plunge due to the number of indigent. Eventually the economy will grind to a halt because the federal dollars going into that system (thus promoting the exchange of capital for goods and services) has been effectively cut off. Eventually the wealthiest few will control the economic destiny of everyone else, but we accept that because we believe that we too will become part of that tiny minority.

But those are consequences we Tae Party Republicans are willing to accept because, as P.T. Barnum once said, you'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of people.

No one has gone broke underestimating your stupidity.
Do you really think the GOP or even the TP is in favor of dismantling every charitable or helping program?
The truth is that Democratic programs have a 40 year history of failure leading to increased dependence. You would have to be terminally brain dead to believe doing more of the same is helping anyone. Of course since you are terminally brain dead you do probably believe this.

Failure? Compared to previous conditions, can you really call federal programs 'failures'? You say 'failure' as if that's accepted fact. What you lack, among other qualities, is a sense of history.

 

[Steven_R]

Failure? Compared to previous conditions, can you really call federal programs 'failures'? You say 'failure' as if that's accepted fact. What you lack, among other qualities, is a sense of history.

Well, what defines a program's success? I mean, if a program is developed to alleviate poverty and we end up with more poverty, it's not really a success is it? Or set up a department to get US energy independent and we never get energy independent, then it's not a success is it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

This little vignette is basically the Democrats' Program for America. By force of law, they take money from the productive members of society, then they dole out a tiny portion of it to "those in need," (as they define it). And they keep a large portion of the stolen money to sustain a mountainous bureaucracy of government employees who also "know which side of the bread is buttered."

McDonald's McResources line urges worker to seek federal assistance - latimes.com

So she called the fast-food behemoth’s employee hotline, known as McResources, in hopes of finding help making ends meet.

But instead of getting any company assistance, the McDonald’s operator suggested Salgado try food pantries, federal food stamps and Medicaid.

The conversation – which was recorded and released to the public Wednesday by labor advocacy group Low Pay Is Not Ok – comes as attention is growing around the taxpayer burden of so many low-paid workers in the fast-food industry.

A report released earlier this month written by economists at UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that more than half of families of fast-food workers receive some form of public assistance, costing the nation $7 billion a year.

Tell me again, you said thru force of law the non productive take from who again?

 

[g5000]

Unfortunately, redistribution is not an exclusively left wing program.

We all pay higher tax rates so the government can redistribute money in the form of tax expenditures. Tax free health insurance benefits from your employer, mortgage interest rate deductions, child tax credits, preferential treatment of capital gains, accelerated depreciation of equipment. There are people who believe our economy cannot survive without all of these government crutches! These are clearly not conservatives in the traditional sense. If your business needs a government subsidy, then your business model is seriously broken. If you need a government subsidy to buy a house, you probably shouldn't be buying a house. If you need a government subsidy to have kids, you probably shouldn't be having kids.

It is baffling to me that such people demand these government interventions and social manipulations and yet think they are conservatives.

These are entitlement minded people, and they are taking $1.2 trillion out of government coffers every year.

That we all have to pay higher tax rates because of these people means they are takers. Astronomical takers. $1.2 trillion! Every year!

America's motto: Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Before:

After:

do you really believe that conditions are just as horrific today as they were prior to federal largess?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Life was great if you romanticize the past

 

[Nosmo King]

Life was great if you romanticize the past

How romantic is a dirt floor, nothing in the pantry and no schools, electricity and shoes?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Life was great if you romanticize the past

How romantic is a dirt floor, nothing in the pantry and no schools, electricity and shoes?

The OP would say "Ahh the good old days!"

 

[The Rabbi]

Before:

After:

do you really believe that conditions are just as horrific today as they were prior to federal largess?

Before:

After:

Obviously the governemnt has benefitted millionaires. Note the pic of John Rockefeller struggling with a horse and buggy. He was the richest man of his time.
Below is a typical middle class family travelling in speed and comfort far in excess of anything Rockefeller could afford.

Are you really this stupid, SmegaKing? Don't answer that, we already know.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Before:

After:

do you really believe that conditions are just as horrific today as they were prior to federal largess?

Obviously the governemnt has benefitted millionaires. Note the pic of John Rockefeller struggling with a horse and buggy. He was the richest man of his time.
Below is a typical middle class family travelling in speed and comfort far in excess of anything Rockefeller could afford.

Are you really this stupid, SmegaKing? Don't answer that, we already know.

Please also ignore the fact that Rockefeller wasn't rich enough to pass through space and time

 

[The Rabbi]

And neither was the family in the first pic SmegmaKing posted. That's my point. You cannot simply compare one photo to another taken 40 years later and say any change in condition was due to gov't programs.

The truth is gov't programs are failures. there are more people dependent on them now than ever. They soak up more money now than ever before. The only success has been to get Democrats elected by promising free crap to increasingly enslaved poor people.

 

[Nosmo King]

Before:

After:

do you really believe that conditions are just as horrific today as they were prior to federal largess?

Obviously the governemnt has benefitted millionaires. Note the pic of John Rockefeller struggling with a horse and buggy. He was the richest man of his time.
Below is a typical middle class family travelling in speed and comfort far in excess of anything Rockefeller could afford.

Are you really this stupid, SmegaKing? Don't answer that, we already know.

Please also ignore the fact that Rockefeller wasn't rich enough to pass through space and time

Now you've done it! You made Diet Coke spew from my nose during an all too appropriate spit take!

 

[Vox]

If that little fairie tale is a 'fair' description of what you consider the Democrat program for easing suffering here in modern America, could this tale be a 'fair' description of the Tea Party plan?

Let the poor die in their beds or in the streets if they have no bed. They are of no consequence to me. Should privation become so severe that my pocketbook is affected, cull the herd so we suffer no more pleas for help for the helpless.

Take away any vestige of subsidized healthcare. Let the insurance companies deny coverage to the infirmed as it is their right to do so. Should a family be forced into bankruptcy due to an illness, so be it as it does not concern me in the least.

It is absolutely necessary to substitute the word 'negotiate' for the word 'capitulation' just so it appears we may be reasonable politicians. It may also be absolutely necessary to shut down the federal government and cost the economy $24 billion dollars and even vote to crash the national credit just to make a political point. It's how we roll.

Eventually, the standard of living here in America will plunge due to the number of indigent. Eventually the economy will grind to a halt because the federal dollars going into that system (thus promoting the exchange of capital for goods and services) has been effectively cut off. Eventually the wealthiest few will control the economic destiny of everyone else, but we accept that because we believe that we too will become part of that tiny minority.

But those are consequences we Tae Party Republicans are willing to accept because, as P.T. Barnum once said, you'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of people.

No one has gone broke underestimating your stupidity.
Do you really think the GOP or even the TP is in favor of dismantling every charitable or helping program?
The truth is that Democratic programs have a 40 year history of failure leading to increased dependence. You would have to be terminally brain dead to believe doing more of the same is helping anyone. Of course since you are terminally brain dead you do probably believe this.

Failure? Compared to previous conditions, can you really call federal programs 'failures'? You say 'failure' as if that's accepted fact. What you lack, among other qualities, is a sense of history.

of course they are failures. they did not improve anything. even one iota.
they ruined a lot - a black family unit, for example.

 

[Nosmo King]

And neither was the family in the first pic SmegmaKing posted. That's my point. You cannot simply compare one photo to another taken 40 years later and say any change in condition was due to gov't programs.

The truth is gov't programs are failures. there are more people dependent on them now than ever. They soak up more money now than ever before. The only success has been to get Democrats elected by promising free crap to increasingly enslaved poor people.

You can compare the privation of one family living without electricity in the first photo with the reality of people after the government program called the TVA. You can compare the life expectancy of adults living before they were able to take part in Medicaid. You could fairly compare the standard of living among the elderly before and after Social Security.

You say government programs are a failure, but the only proof you proffer is your stilted opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one has gone broke underestimating your stupidity.
Do you really think the GOP or even the TP is in favor of dismantling every charitable or helping program?
The truth is that Democratic programs have a 40 year history of failure leading to increased dependence. You would have to be terminally brain dead to believe doing more of the same is helping anyone. Of course since you are terminally brain dead you do probably believe this.

Failure? Compared to previous conditions, can you really call federal programs 'failures'? You say 'failure' as if that's accepted fact. What you lack, among other qualities, is a sense of history.

of course they are failures. they did not improve anything. even one iota.
they ruined a lot - a black family unit, for example.

Unless you want to count spiffy pics of migrant farm families in the Depression and middle class pics of someone entirely different in the 1970s. But that's the level SmegmaKing operates on. Anything resembling thought process is totally gone.