The Basic Democrat Program

[Nosmo King]

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.

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

And how did that poverty increase?

 

[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.

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.

That's really a response?
People had electricity without the TVA. In fact the TVA has probably been a net negative to economic growth in the region.
People have been living longer regardless of Medicaid. Of course that will come to an end with Obamacare rationing but thats another subject.
People saved for retirement before SS. People relied on family members before SS. Overall SS has been a negative for people, taxing them now in exchange for promises later. Do you really think SS is going to pay for your retirement? Really?

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Blacks own what they have done. The vehicle to success was given, many decided not to ride.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

I'm going to propose somethng so radical your mind will literally explode. So you may want to skip this post.
You don't compare conditions before X to conditions after X.
You compare conditions after X to what would likely have happened if X had never happened.

I know. It's too much for you. Sorry to ruin your Tuesday.

 

[Vox]

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.

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

SS was enacted long before the welfare programs were.

and SS is not welfare. neither is medicare.

so stop lying as usual - although it is difficult for a leftard - SS and medicare are not welfare and are not something we are talking about here.

Welfare and all those myriad "assistance" programs - those are increasing poverty and those ruined black family unit.
they are now ruining hispanic and white family units as well - the bad example is contagious

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Blacks own what they have done. The vehicle to success was given, many decided not to ride.

I thought you cared about poor people. Now you just blame them. Are you really a libertarian?

 

[hazlnut]

 

[Vox]

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.

Blacks own what they have done. The vehicle to success was given, many decided not to ride.

true, but it is the human nature to go the path with the least resistance.

the damage is not finished - the ruin of the family unit continues.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

so you must be on welfare also.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Blacks own what they have done. The vehicle to success was given, many decided not to ride.

true, but it is the human nature to go the path with the least resistance.

the damage is not finished - the ruin of the family unit continues.

Anymore excuses for bad behavior?

 

[Nosmo King]

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

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

I'm going to propose somethng so radical your mind will literally explode. So you may want to skip this post.
You don't compare conditions before X to conditions after X.
You compare conditions after X to what would likely have happened if X had never happened.

I know. It's too much for you. Sorry to ruin your Tuesday.

So comparing X to after X is invalid while comparing X to an assumption reveals fact? And that's the model you use when developing these so called responses? How on earth can you look yourself in the mirror?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

SS was enacted long before the welfare programs were.

and SS is not welfare. neither is medicare.

so stop lying as usual - although it is difficult for a leftard - SS and medicare are not welfare and are not something we are talking about here.

Welfare and all those myriad "assistance" programs - those are increasing poverty and those ruined black family unit.
they are now ruining hispanic and white family units as well - the bad example is contagious

We can ask what did people do before SS. They saved for retirement. They bought annuities. They got better rates of return than SS has offered.
Libs assume people are stupid and unable to care for themselves. Then they enact programs that guarantee that outcome.

 

[Moonglow]

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

SS was enacted long before the welfare programs were.

and SS is not welfare. neither is medicare.

so stop lying as usual - although it is difficult for a leftard - SS and medicare are not welfare and are not something we are talking about here.

Welfare and all those myriad "assistance" programs - those are increasing poverty and those ruined black family unit.
they are now ruining hispanic and white family units as well - the bad example is contagious

We can ask what did people do before SS. They saved for retirement. They bought annuities. They got better rates of return than SS has offered.
Libs assume people are stupid and unable to care for themselves. Then they enact programs that guarantee that outcome.

Some people are stupid and can't take care of themselves, it's been going on for mellinea, look in your Bible for stories that show how people lived then.
Annuities costs money to operate by the consumer, SS does not.
before SS people lived in a house hold with two-three and some 4 generations living in the house. Today we do not.
Before SS many people had land for free from the govt. Today we do not.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

I'm going to propose somethng so radical your mind will literally explode. So you may want to skip this post.
You don't compare conditions before X to conditions after X.
You compare conditions after X to what would likely have happened if X had never happened.

I know. It's too much for you. Sorry to ruin your Tuesday.

So comparing X to after X is invalid while comparing X to an assumption reveals fact? And that's the model you use when developing these so called responses? How on earth can you look yourself in the mirror?

Darn, I knew it was going to be too much for you to comprehend. Sorry, dude.
Here's a pic of a hot chick to make up for it. I won't try to make you think again.

 

[The Rabbi]

SS was enacted long before the welfare programs were.

and SS is not welfare. neither is medicare.

so stop lying as usual - although it is difficult for a leftard - SS and medicare are not welfare and are not something we are talking about here.

Welfare and all those myriad "assistance" programs - those are increasing poverty and those ruined black family unit.
they are now ruining hispanic and white family units as well - the bad example is contagious

We can ask what did people do before SS. They saved for retirement. They bought annuities. They got better rates of return than SS has offered.
Libs assume people are stupid and unable to care for themselves. Then they enact programs that guarantee that outcome.

Some people are stupid and can't take care of themselves, it's been going on for mellinea, look in your Bible for stories that show how people lived then.
Annuities costs money to operate by the consumer, SS does not.
before SS people lived in a house hold with two-three and some 4 generations living in the house. Today we do not.

Wow. I never thought I would live to see such a self-referential post. In all my life.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm going to propose somethng so radical your mind will literally explode. So you may want to skip this post.
You don't compare conditions before X to conditions after X.
You compare conditions after X to what would likely have happened if X had never happened.

I know. It's too much for you. Sorry to ruin your Tuesday.

So comparing X to after X is invalid while comparing X to an assumption reveals fact? And that's the model you use when developing these so called responses? How on earth can you look yourself in the mirror?

Darn, I knew it was going to be too much for you to comprehend. Sorry, dude.
Here's a pic of a hot chick to make up for it. I won't try to make you think again.

I comprehend it just fine. When faced with facts, make up a story about how things would have been before the event and present that fable as truth. A convenient, if not entirely intellectually dishonest way to argue. In other words, par for the course for you and your ilk.

 

[Rebelitarian]

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?

What about the fact that the same Republicans that are votiung against FOOD STAMPS are the same ones taking farm subsidies for themselves, yeah they really hate socialism.

Then of course both parties all the FED to use central banking to destroy the economy.

Give a man a gun he can rob a bank....

Give a man a bank and he can rob a nation...

How about the fact that it was these banks that contracted the money supply too much that food stamps and welfare became necessary ?

You conservatives hate socialism what about banker socialism where banks get paid bonuses NOT to lend money to small businesses.

FED PAYING Banks To Withhold Loans From Citizens


The FED paying banks not to use their excess capitol to make loans. ... Banks excess reserves at the Fed rose to a record $877.1 Billion daily average ... from 2 Billion a year earlier. ... The FED is paying banks higher int rates to keep their funds parked at the FED instead of loaning the money to the American people.

http://amrpt.tv/video/Fed-PAYING-Banks-To-Withhold-Lo;State-Of-The-Union

Fed PAYING Banks To Withhold Loans From Citizens

Funny how right wingers never talk about this outrage.

Not that I am a socialist lefty but welfare and foodstamps are the symptoms and the FED banking system is the cause.

Why don't right-wingers grow a back bone like the Constitution Party and work to actually END the FED !!!! Constitution Party > Home


http://www.prisonplanet.com/81-5-of...ring-dust-instead-of-helping-the-economy.html

OMG QE socialism at the FED itself....

Come on Conservatives get outraged already !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just cuz con-tarded radio gets subsidized by these guys doesn't mean you can't be anti-socialist !!!!!!

 

[Vox]

Blacks own what they have done. The vehicle to success was given, many decided not to ride.

true, but it is the human nature to go the path with the least resistance.

the damage is not finished - the ruin of the family unit continues.

Anymore excuses for bad behavior?

you want to end bad behavior?

put the time limit and quantity limit plus repayment necessity on the welfare assistance for single mothers, for example.

bad behavior will all but disappear and the uneducated suddenly discover that birth control and/or abstinence during school years can do wonders fro your future

 

[Vox]

So the elderly were better off before Social Security? Poor southerners were better off before the TVA? The homeless were better off living under bridges and not in public housing? Babies fared better before WIC?

Either prove your assumptions or get out of the way.

SS was enacted long before the welfare programs were.

and SS is not welfare. neither is medicare.

so stop lying as usual - although it is difficult for a leftard - SS and medicare are not welfare and are not something we are talking about here.

Welfare and all those myriad "assistance" programs - those are increasing poverty and those ruined black family unit.
they are now ruining hispanic and white family units as well - the bad example is contagious

We can ask what did people do before SS. They saved for retirement. They bought annuities. They got better rates of return than SS has offered.
Libs assume people are stupid and unable to care for themselves. Then they enact programs that guarantee that outcome.

I would separate the programs which are funded by the people for themselves ( for later use)and the ones which are the typical handout as they are different and address different segments of the populace.