PDA

View Full Version : Bilge Liberals; Your Real Party Just Called



Waddie
09-18-2014, 12:34 AM
I think this article is spot on. Bilge liberals are as dissatisfied with the mainstream (read Obama and Hillary) Democratic party as they are with the Republicans. (OK, maybe not quite as much). But here is the emergence of a Democratic party that really reflects your values. Can you get behind them and defeat the mainstream posers you know you detest, er, dislike, er, are ashamed of, er, can't stomach, er, I mean, those compromisers you're determined not to criticize.

http://www.thenation.com/article/181552/meet-elizabeth-warren-wing-democratic-party#

Or are they just the Tea Party of the Left?

regards,
Waddie

David G
09-18-2014, 12:48 AM
I'd welcome another FDR. He was a populist, yes. But he was also a blue-blood who understood completely the legitimate concerns of the business class... and how we'd dramatically and catastrophically overshot those concerns.

I'd gladly back either Sanders or Warren to the hilt in a primary contest. Not because I think they have a chance to win, but to help open up and shift the conversation in directions I think are important. If Hillary is, in the end, to be the candidate... a shot across her bow would - I think - be salubrious.

Gerarddm
09-18-2014, 01:12 AM
Hear hear, David G.

PeterSibley
09-18-2014, 02:56 AM
Getting closer to the rest of the Western world .

seanz
09-18-2014, 03:05 AM
"you bilge liberal, you"

I like the sound of that, has potential.
:)

Nicholas Scheuer
09-18-2014, 03:37 AM
Not going to back anybody who isn't running.

isla
09-18-2014, 03:48 AM
I think this article is spot on. Bilge liberals are as dissatisfied with the mainstream (read Obama and Hillary) Democratic party

regards,
WaddieSo when did this survey of Bilge Liberals happen?

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 03:51 AM
Bilge liberals are as dissatisfied with the mainstream (read Obama and Hillary) Democratic party as they are with the Republicans. (OK, maybe not quite as much). But here is the emergence of a Democratic party that really reflects your values. Can you get behind them and defeat the mainstream posers you know you detest, er, dislike, er, are ashamed of, er, can't stomach, er, I mean, those compromisers you're determined not to criticize.Unlike the 21st century Republican Party, the Democratic Party is a big tent.

Notice that no Democrat is labeling other Democrats as "DINOs."

I am not surprised that a 21st century conservative finds that puzzling.

Keith Wilson
09-18-2014, 07:01 AM
Bilge liberals are as dissatisfied with the mainstream (read Obama and Hillary) Democratic party as they are with the Republicans. (OK, maybe not quite as much).Maybe not quite so much?!? Indeed. Perhaps I don't qualify as a 'Bilge liberal', since I am considerably to the right of The Nation, but this is the understatement of the century. I do not always agree with the mainstream of the Democratic party, but I think the Republicans are out of their f*cking minds! The Republicans' move to the far right over the past 20 years has left me a proverbial 'yellow dog Democrat'. The Democratic Party is used to divisions; it once included genuine socialists and conservative southern racists, and this is nothing by comparison.

Keith Wilson
09-18-2014, 07:28 AM
It is the Republican Party that operates more like a herd,This was not always true. 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, there was as wide a spectrum of ideas in the Republican party as there is now among the Democrats. The change started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, and really got rolling when Lee Atwater figured out that you could win elections without appealing to the center by 'energizing the base' and increasing turnout thorough extremism. The purges started after Reagan.

The central fact of American politics over the past 30 years has been the Republican Party's move to the far right.

BCarp
09-18-2014, 07:45 AM
This was not always true. 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, there was as wide a spectrum of ideas in the Republican party as there is now among the Democrats. The change started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, and really got rolling when Lee Atwater figured out that you could win elections without appealing to the center by 'energizing the base' and increasing turnout thorough extremism. The purges started after Reagan.

The central fact of American politics over the past 30 years has been the Republican Party's move to the far right.

There is another central fact of US politics of the last 4 decades: the Democratic Party's striving to create a permanent gov't-dependent underclass as a reliable voting bloc. In this they have succeeded, sadly....

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 07:58 AM
Evidence???

We don't need no stinking evidence!

We reject your reality and substitute our own.

BCarp
09-18-2014, 07:59 AM
Hmmm.. so this is a conspiracy? The Democratic Party intentionally wants to creat a permanent economic underclass? You're arguing that you somehow KNOW what the intention of the Dmocratic Party is... so you must have some proof which contradicts the idea that the Democratic Party simply wants to represent the interests of lower-income people.

Show us the evidence.

It's not a conspiracy, it's obvious. We are fast approaching the point where 50% of the population (taxpayers) support the other 50%. These people will reliably vote a certain way. The desire to fast-track undocumented aliens into (ultimately) voting citizens is part of the plan.

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 08:10 AM
There is another central fact of US politics of the last 4 decades: the Democratic Party's striving to create a permanent gov't-dependent underclass as a reliable voting bloc. In this they have succeeded, sadly....

Wow. You drank ALL the Kool-Aid, didn't you...

John Smith
09-18-2014, 08:12 AM
I'd welcome another FDR. He was a populist, yes. But he was also a blue-blood who understood completely the legitimate concerns of the business class... and how we'd dramatically and catastrophically overshot those concerns.

I'd gladly back either Sanders or Warren to the hilt in a primary contest. Not because I think they have a chance to win, but to help open up and shift the conversation in directions I think are important. If Hillary is, in the end, to be the candidate... a shot across her bow would - I think - be salubrious.

I agree. To make an analogy, Single Payer had no chance in hell to be our new system, but if it had a seat at the table, more people would know more about it, and that would be good.

John Smith
09-18-2014, 08:15 AM
No one asked me, but I don't think the problem is with liberals. What this nation needs, IMO, is for conservatives/Republicans to realize how far right their GOP has moved and to the great extent it is no longer the party of their parents. If they come to realize this, they may be prone to seriously considering that they no longer fit into their party; their party has left them.

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 08:18 AM
We are fast approaching the point where 50% of the population (taxpayers) support the other 50%. These people will reliably vote a certain way.
So Mitt Romney was correct. Got'cha.

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 08:18 AM
But their party hasn't left them. They are operating on one-liner "philosophy" with superficial appeal, and the party provides that in spades. The resulting policies are harmful - you get that and I get that - but the policies are not what appeals to their voters.

elf
09-18-2014, 08:19 AM
If that's the case, why would the EW wing of the Democratic party be putting so much energy into things like raising the minimum wage?

Keith Wilson
09-18-2014, 08:44 AM
We are fast approaching the point where 50% of the population (taxpayers) support the other 50%. This is simply false - either an egregious mistake, or a lie that you have accepted. The idea that half the population is mooching off the other half is completely wrong.

Here's the percentage of income paid in taxes (all taxes, not just income taxes) by different income levels. The figures are a couple of years old, but it hasn't changed much. (Source here. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0))

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/taxrates2.jpg

Here's the share of taxes pad vs. the share of total income. Note the correlation.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/shares.jpg

What has actually happened is that the share of income going to the very richest has gotten much larger:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/p4.png

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/change%20share.png

And here's the same thing over the long term. Back to the Gilded Age!

http://www.mutanteggplant.com/agog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/income-inequality-usa-05.jpg

elf
09-18-2014, 08:51 AM
No one asked me, but I don't think the problem is with liberals. What this nation needs, IMO, is for conservatives/Republicans to realize how far right their GOP has moved and to the great extent it is no longer the party of their parents. If they come to realize this, they may be prone to seriously considering that they no longer fit into their party; their party has left them.
I doubt it. As we see daily here, those people don't have a thinking skillset.

BCarp
09-18-2014, 09:10 AM
Wow. You drank ALL the Kool-Aid, didn't you...

Right; how foolish of me. Of course the Dems are all about altruism, tolerance, sweetness and light; not all concerned with gaining and maintaining political dominance. (They are succeeding brilliantly and are to be admired!) As for Kool-Aid, there certainly is plenty of evidence of lock-step thinking here.

John Smith
09-18-2014, 09:13 AM
I think the charts above are pretty, but there's a "bottom line' in this country that everyone in this country should be embarrassed by.

There are a lot of people who are working who qualify for government subsidies. That puts them in the "takers" column.

Seems to my humble self that those who get up and go to work should earn enough money to not need government assistance in the form of food stamps, welfare, etc.

The one promise this country likes to think it makes is 'opportunity'. Everyone want to "climb the ladder" but it's really hard when someone pulls the rungs out.

John Smith
09-18-2014, 09:16 AM
Right; how foolish of me. Of course the Dems are all about altruism, tolerance, sweetness and light; not all concerned with gaining and maintaining political dominance. (They are succeeding brilliantly and are to be admired!) As for Kool-Aid, there certainly is plenty of evidence of lock-step thinking here.

I can only speak for myself, but would love to have a dominant, in control party who supports raising the minimum wage, healthcare for all, rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure, getting off fossil fuels, etc. I'd like to have a party in charge that is willing to address immigration reform and equal pay for equal work.

Today's Republican Party is against pretty much everything I'm for; the right to vote and things listed above. Sure I've missed a few.

Keith Wilson
09-18-2014, 09:34 AM
. . . not all concerned with gaining and maintaining political dominance.Don't be silly. The entire point of a political party is 'gaining and maintaining political dominance'. The parties that don't do that disappear. You won't find an American Party candidate on your ballot, that died with George Wallace, nor Reform Party since Ross Perot lost, nor a Progressive (Bull Moose) Party, nor a States' Rights Democratic Party, because the heirs of the Dixiecrats are all now Republicans.

But your claim that half of the people are living by mooching off the other half is bullsh!t. As is the claim that the Democrats are deliberately creating a dependent class in order to gain power. God forbid that the government should actually do something to help people; the only legitimate function of government is to lock people up in the US and to kill them abroad. (heavy sarcasm)

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 09:46 AM
Of course the Dems are (...) not all concerned with gaining and maintaining political dominance.

I won't argue that, but how you get from there to the deliberate creation as a political strategy of an underclass permanently dependent upon the government is a leap of faith that calls for stringent evidence if not outright ridicule.

BrianY
09-18-2014, 09:58 AM
But your claim that half of the people are living by mooching off the other half is bullsh!t.

Hey, if he's so indignant about this, I'm sure he'll be glad to give up any social security benefits he has coming to him. After all, I'm sure such a man of principle so outraged by people mooching off of others would NEVER agree to getting income from working people while he sits back and enjoys his retirement.

ccmanuals
09-18-2014, 10:18 AM
I think this article is spot on. Bilge liberals are as dissatisfied with the mainstream (read Obama and Hillary) Democratic party as they are with the Republicans. (OK, maybe not quite as much). But here is the emergence of a Democratic party that really reflects your values. Can you get behind them and defeat the mainstream posers you know you detest, er, dislike, er, are ashamed of, er, can't stomach, er, I mean, those compromisers you're determined not to criticize.

http://www.thenation.com/article/181552/meet-elizabeth-warren-wing-democratic-party#

Or are they just the Tea Party of the Left?

regards,
Waddie

Liberals don't have a strict purity test like conservatives. We truly do have a big tent.

elf
09-18-2014, 10:31 AM
And that's their problem.

Osborne Russell
09-18-2014, 01:10 PM
There is another central fact of US politics of the last 4 decades: the Democratic Party's striving to create a permanent gov't-dependent underclass as a reliable voting bloc. In this they have succeeded, sadly....

I thought the Republicans wanted the population to increase. And all those extra people are going to need a party to advance their interests. So the difference is . . .

Osborne Russell
09-18-2014, 01:12 PM
And that's their problem.

The Big Tent cuts both ways like a two edged dull-ass butter knife.

David G
09-18-2014, 01:24 PM
And that's their problem.

Yes... and their opportunity...

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 02:25 PM
One can quibble about percentages and Keith can post charts, but the fact is that this country has spent in excess of 22 Trillion Dollars since the commencement of President Johnson's War on Poverty (50 years ago).

Adjusted for inflation, that figure is THREE TIMES more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution. You want income redistribution? It's already here, has been for 50 years.

This is an abysmal record. Simply atrocious. The facts are that these expenditures have not increased opportunity for those in poverty, but instead have fostered dependence on government and have mired these people in a permanent underclass status. Generations of them. That is the record.

Yet one never hears liberals calling for reform; rather, the call is for ever-more spending, borne on the backs of those who choose to work, to produce. These programs should be dramatically and systematically cut.

And Obama and the Dems moan about "stupid wars." Yes, indeed, Mr. President.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/16/war-poverty-colossal-flop/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 02:54 PM
these expenditures have not increased opportunity for those in poverty

I doubt you can support that assertion with facts, but go ahead and try. In the meantime, consider this: the goal of most social programs is not to "increase opportunity", it is to shield people from the worst effects of poverty. By that measure, they appear to have done a much more credible job.

Keith Wilson
09-18-2014, 02:58 PM
. . . the fact is that this country has spent in excess of 22 Trillion Dollars . . . Source, please? How is this divided up? What does it include? How is it paid for?


The facts are that these expenditures have not increased opportunity for those in poverty, but instead have fostered dependence on government and have mired these people in a permanent underclass status. . . . borne on the backs of those who choose to work, to produce.Yeah? And you know this how? This is theology, not facts.

Republicans whine and Republicans b!tch,
The rich are too poor and the poor are to rich.

BrianY
09-18-2014, 03:09 PM
I thnk that there is a tiny bit of truth that scoial welfare programs foster a long term dependence on them and I also think that the social welfare programs we have have not done enough to increase opportunities for poor people.

That does not mean, however, that these programs have failed. Instead, this indicates that we have not done enough. I know all the conservative here will crucify me for that but before I'm nailed to the tree, let me explain.

The majority of social welfare prgrams we have work to help people meet their immediate day to day needs for food and shelter. Relarively littel is spent on job training, education and otehr priograms that will lead to long-term improvements intheir lives. If politicians were really serious about helping disavantaged people improve their live, they'd allocate money for these sorts of programs IN ADDITION to providing for the basic necessities of food and shelter. After all, if a family doesn't have a place to live and not enough food to eat, how the hell can anyone expect that mom or dad will be able to benefit from a job training program?

As I see it, people beocome dependent of government programs because ther programs do not do enough to enable them to acquire the skills they need to improve their lot. All these programs do is keep them alive.

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 03:15 PM
More quibbling about numbers, Keith? Call it government programs of whatever form conceived in the law in assistance to the poor. Have you got an alternative number of sufficient materiality that ends the discussion? No? Then let us leave the dissembling.

Let us more concretely ask instead: has the War on Poverty been a success? Yes, Keith? Can we say that 50 years later, has the "war" been won?

Conservatives have integrity on this issue because their positions on these issues come with a negative electoral consequence.

Democrats? Not so much.

Keith Wilson
09-18-2014, 03:22 PM
Asking you to verify your numbers and quote the source is NOT 'dissembling' or 'quibbling'. You quote figures, you have an obligation to back them up.

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 03:43 PM
Let us more concretely ask instead: has the War on Poverty been a success?

Let us, indeed, ask. Here's an answer:


According to the Congressional Budget Office, social programs significantly raise the standard of living for low-income Americans, particularly the elderly. The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600 - less than half of the federal poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line). Social programs increase those households' before-tax income to $30,500. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for two-thirds of that increase.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cbo.gov-26)

But wait, let's look at some individual programs!

Medicaid Grants to States - improved people's ability to pay for medical care? Why yes, so it has.
Food Stamps (SNAP) - improved people's ability to feed themselves and their families? Yes, it has.
Earned Income Tax Credit and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) - improved the financial outlook of impoverished people? Well, look at that, it has.
Housing assistance - improved the ability of poor people to obtain housing? Gee, that seems to have worked, too.
Child Nutrition Program (CHIP) - improved nutrition for poor kids? Oh, this is too easy - yes!

Shall I go on?

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 03:45 PM
Conservatives have integrity on this issue because their positions on these issues come with a negative electoral consequence.

I suppose that if you consider selfishness a virtue, there's a certain logic to that. Fortunately, some people don't consider selfishness a virtue.

elf
09-18-2014, 04:20 PM
Conservatives have integrity on this issue because their positions on these issues come with a negative electoral consequence.
Electoral? Really? The most important thing among human beings is to get elected?

Cynicism at that level is fascism.

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 04:46 PM
Cynicism at that level is fascism.

Nonsense. It is the exact converse of cynicism; it is the conscious decision to do what one believes is correct and appropriate even though it will cost votes, tens of millions of them, as opposed to pandering.

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 04:50 PM
Asking you to verify your numbers and quote the source is NOT 'dissembling' or 'quibbling'. You quote figures, you have an obligation to back them up.

Wrong. I linked to a column that cited the relevant figure. That's sufficient initial verification, though partisan in nature. That's the starting point.

If you wish to question the 22 Trillion figure in order to buttress your own analysis or to controvert it, that is your obligation.

John Smith
09-18-2014, 05:30 PM
I thnk that there is a tiny bit of truth that scoial welfare programs foster a long term dependence on them and I also think that the social welfare programs we have have not done enough to increase opportunities for poor people.

That does not mean, however, that these programs have failed. Instead, this indicates that we have not done enough. I know all the conservative here will crucify me for that but before I'm nailed to the tree, let me explain.

The majority of social welfare prgrams we have work to help people meet their immediate day to day needs for food and shelter. Relarively littel is spent on job training, education and otehr priograms that will lead to long-term improvements intheir lives. If politicians were really serious about helping disavantaged people improve their live, they'd allocate money for these sorts of programs IN ADDITION to providing for the basic necessities of food and shelter. After all, if a family doesn't have a place to live and not enough food to eat, how the hell can anyone expect that mom or dad will be able to benefit from a job training program?

As I see it, people beocome dependent of government programs because ther programs do not do enough to enable them to acquire the skills they need to improve their lot. All these programs do is keep them alive.

I think, no offense, you're nuts, or just narrow minded. The fact that so many people need government assistance is because Capitalism has failed them. Middle/working class income has been stagnant sine '79. Upper class income has soared. If only the working class income and the upper class incomes grew at a somewhat similar rate. If people who worked got a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and made enough to not qualify for, or need, government assistance.

Capitalism is supposed to be the engine that puts all citizens to work at good paying jobs. Meanwhile, as we tax the wealth created by private industry, we use that wealth to build our infrastructure, which that industry needs to flourish. We have been under taxed since Reagan. Private sector has suffered from the greed factor. Short term profit seeking has caused pay for workers to suffer.

PeterSibley
09-18-2014, 05:42 PM
I think, no offense, you're nuts, or just narrow minded. The fact that so many people need government assistance is because Capitalism has failed them. Middle/working class income has been stagnant sine '79. Upper class income has soared. If only the working class income and the upper class incomes grew at a somewhat similar rate. If people who worked got a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and made enough to not qualify for, or need, government assistance.

Capitalism is supposed to be the engine that puts all citizens to work at good paying jobs. Meanwhile, as we tax the wealth created by private industry, we use that wealth to build our infrastructure, which that industry needs to flourish. We have been under taxed since Reagan. Private sector has suffered from the greed factor. Short term profit seeking has caused pay for workers to suffer.

I'd suggest that that is what you would like capitalism to be for .... but it's not. It's primary function is to use capital to increase capital. Human interests are of very little importance, that's socialism's place.

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 06:02 PM
The fact that the government is able to spend trillions for those who cannot do for themselves is the singular TRIUMPH of capitalism.

Not only has capitalism not failed these people, they are the chief beneficiaries of the system in view of their extremely limited contributions to it, and despite their monstrous drain on it.

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 06:04 PM
So you despise the concept of the social contract and the resulting social safety net.

You prefer economic and social Darwinism.

No doubt you are proud of your ideological purity.

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 06:08 PM
I find it odd that so many 21st century right-wingnuts embrace the concept of social Darwinism and yet reject the science of natural selection.

PeterSibley
09-18-2014, 06:08 PM
monstrous.

Capitalism is an economic system . Civil society is an inconvenience to it and there is a constant battle between the forces that care for money and those that care for people and that balance varies from country to country.

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 06:16 PM
Darn right I am very proud that I don't depend on others to supply me with a job, or whine and moan when they don't, or otherwise demand that the government to pay my bills and feed my children.

I wish more could and would share in this pride and dignity. Instead, many are pleased to do no work at all, and just want their free stuff.

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 06:17 PM
Bless you fortunate one.

Undoubtedly you do not consider yourself fortunate so much as deserving.

Stick round a few more years. Life tends to blast the self-satisfied.

PeterSibley
09-18-2014, 06:19 PM
You sound like you're whining to me. Whining about the poor standard of humanity and that it's not as smart and motivated as you.


But that's the way it is.

PeterSibley
09-18-2014, 06:20 PM
I wonder how you would have gone with an IQ of 85?

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 06:27 PM
I wonder how you would have gone with an IQ of 85?

+1 Y>

...or a head injury, or a debilitating illness, or a crippling addiction, or PTSD that prevented him from functioning effectively, or the grinding poverty that makes living in and scavenging a third-world dump the best option available to him, or a bunch of young kids to look after after their father took off. Or - what's more to the point - the kind of bad choices of which most people have one or two between themselves and homelessness.

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 06:29 PM
Tell you what, though - when it comes to a legislated social safety net, I'm especially tickled at the prospect of using tax dollars from smug, self-righteous ba$tards to support the less fortunate! :D

Sky Blue
09-18-2014, 06:34 PM
More free stuff! http://www.ibtimes.com/free-weed-poor-berkeley-marijuana-dispensaries-giving-away-pot-low-income-customers-1680152

Flying Orca
09-18-2014, 06:41 PM
Right on, maaaaan...

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 06:52 PM
Sky Blue....

You really need to distinguish between Local, State, and Federal government when you criticize "Government."

Otherwise your criticism comes across as the raving of a simpleton.

Unless, of course, you are an anarchist who opposes all form of government. In that case just say so.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-18-2014, 07:28 PM
It's not a conspiracy, it's obvious. We are fast approaching the point where 50% of the population (taxpayers) support the other 50%. These people will reliably vote a certain way. The desire to fast-track undocumented aliens into (ultimately) voting citizens is part of the plan.


You keep a lot of guns and tinned food around don't you.

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 08:09 PM
You don't?

What is wrong with you????

Tom Montgomery
09-18-2014, 08:23 PM
be careful that you don't start to believe your own propaganda, Peter :)
You don't?

What is wrong with you????

BrianY
09-18-2014, 10:19 PM
I think, no offense, you're nuts, or just narrow minded. The fact that so many people need government assistance is because Capitalism has failed them. Middle/working class income has been stagnant sine '79. Upper class income has soared. If only the working class income and the upper class incomes grew at a somewhat similar rate. If people who worked got a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and made enough to not qualify for, or need, government assistance.

Capitalism is supposed to be the engine that puts all citizens to work at good paying jobs. Meanwhile, as we tax the wealth created by private industry, we use that wealth to build our infrastructure, which that industry needs to flourish. We have been under taxed since Reagan. Private sector has suffered from the greed factor. Short term profit seeking has caused pay for workers to suffer.


I don't disagree with you at all. I was, however, not talking about WHY people need government assistance in the first place. Rather, I was trying to get at why people become dependent on it. Conservative love to tell us it's because people are lazy, that they're just looking for a handout, that they're irresponsible or that they love the lifestyle. As is typical with conservatives' views on social issues, the truth is far more complex than they will ever admit. Yes some people are lazy and some have no incentive to get off welfare. But no one can truthfully say that our government programs provide the kind of support that most people need to lift themselves up. We feed and house the poor but we don't do very much to help them to become successful. Giving people food stamps will keep them alive, but it won't enable them to get a job. Finding people low wage jobs won't do them any good if they can't get to them because they don't have cars or other transportation or someone to watch their kids while they're at work. Even if they can get to work and they do have child care, do they have the skills they need to get a job that will pay them a living wage? Do they have the skills and the education to manage their money, balance a checkbook and cook a nutritious meal?

living life successfully is MUCH more than simply a matter of having a job and working hard (although Conservatives don't think so. To them, it's all about hard work and not being lazy.) You have to have the skills to live decently and a lot of poor people don't have them. This is where our social welfare system fails. We keep people alive but we don't give them the skills and means they need to live.

Chip-skiff
09-19-2014, 12:10 AM
Farmers and ranchers get a lot more government money than poor people, and the richest corporate farmers and ranchers get most of that.

That's why they keep voting Republican. The Republican party believes in handing out welfare to whose who don't need it (e.g. Big Oil), but really want it, and are willing to pay a kickback.

Keith Wilson
09-19-2014, 07:42 AM
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth GalbraithThe source of the figures in that social-darwinist column Sky Blue linked was a report by the Heritage Foundation, which you can read here (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years). The report has some footnotes, but the source of much of the data they quote is not identified, or it references back to another Heritage Foundation report, a hall of mirrors which I do not wish to enter. I have no way to verify the numbers. They appear to be carefully selected to make spending on tax-funded anti-poverty programs appear as large as possible - but again, since they don't reference the original sources I have no way of demonstrating that.

The gist of the report is standard Reaganesque stuff, the poor are mooching off the rest of us, they aren't really poor since they have televisions at our expense and are not actually starving, and it's their own fault for having too many children and not getting married. All of these contain some truth. The underlying view of the world is warmed-over Ayn Rand, with strong roots in Calvin and the Northern European middle classes at the time of the Reformation - that hard work and virtuous living produce wealth, and that that fundamental cause of poverty is vice and indolence. Like all really good lies, there is a good bit of truth in it.

Republicans whine and Republicans b!tch
The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich.


We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much.

Galbraith again.

John Smith
09-19-2014, 08:11 AM
The fact that the government is able to spend trillions for those who cannot do for themselves is the singular TRIUMPH of capitalism.

Not only has capitalism not failed these people, they are the chief beneficiaries of the system in view of their extremely limited contributions to it, and despite their monstrous drain on it.

Strange way of thinking. If Capitalism worked for all, who would need the government programs. Where are the jobs? It is for lack of sufficient income that people need government assistance. I would think this obvious.

John Smith
09-19-2014, 08:14 AM
Darn right I am very proud that I don't depend on others to supply me with a job, or whine and moan when they don't, or otherwise demand that the government to pay my bills and feed my children.

I wish more could and would share in this pride and dignity. Instead, many are pleased to do no work at all, and just want their free stuff.
I'm happy for you. You've apparently done well. If you'd get your ego out of the way you'd see not everyone has done so well. If we want people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the lease we can do is see to it they have boots.

The one thing this country promises is opportunity. That is the promise it is not living up to for most Americans.

John Smith
09-19-2014, 08:21 AM
I don't disagree with you at all. I was, however, not talking about WHY people need government assistance in the first place. Rather, I was trying to get at why people become dependent on it. Conservative love to tell us it's because people are lazy, that they're just looking for a handout, that they're irresponsible or that they love the lifestyle. As is typical with conservatives' views on social issues, the truth is far more complex than they will ever admit. Yes some people are lazy and some have no incentive to get off welfare. But no one can truthfully say that our government programs provide the kind of support that most people need to lift themselves up. We feed and house the poor but we don't do very much to help them to become successful. Giving people food stamps will keep them alive, but it won't enable them to get a job. Finding people low wage jobs won't do them any good if they can't get to them because they don't have cars or other transportation or someone to watch their kids while they're at work. Even if they can get to work and they do have child care, do they have the skills they need to get a job that will pay them a living wage? Do they have the skills and the education to manage their money, balance a checkbook and cook a nutritious meal?

living life successfully is MUCH more than simply a matter of having a job and working hard (although Conservatives don't think so. To them, it's all about hard work and not being lazy.) You have to have the skills to live decently and a lot of poor people don't have them. This is where our social welfare system fails. We keep people alive but we don't give them the skills and means they need to live.

There needs to be somewhere to lift oneself up to. It needs to be a job/career more than working at McDonald's or such. The right tells us government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Of course, they also say, "Mr. President, where are the jobs?" which makes one wonder what they really believe.

President Bush thought it a marvelous thing that one woman he talked to had three jobs to make ends meet, which, of course, prevented her from spending time and energy with her family, and no doubt the right will say she's a bad mom for not spending more time with her kids.

Oh, wait! One can be on welfare, then find a job at Walmart, fast food, etc. and STILL need the welfare.

There is no excuse in the richest country in the world (so they keep saying) that someone who works full time needs, and qualifies for, public assistance.

John Smith
09-19-2014, 08:25 AM
All of this gets back to the simple, basic economic theory: Money to our economy is as blood to our body. Too much or too little in one part and we get sick. Outsourcing jobs is like stabbing our body and creating bleeding wound. We can only survive so many. Money, by nature, trickles up through consumption. It must be pumped down via wages, tax codes, or safety nets so it can be spent and tickle back up.

Osborne Russell
09-19-2014, 11:34 AM
The right tells us government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Of course, they also say, "Mr. President, where are the jobs?" which makes one wonder what they really believe.

Less gov, more jobs is the rap as I understand it. Like, if we took away the prohibition of slavery, there would be more jobs for slaves. Right now all slaves are illegal so they pay no taxes. That contributes to the deficit and the debt. Government should get out of the way.

PeterSibley
09-19-2014, 08:09 PM
Farmers and ranchers get a lot more government money than poor people, and the richest corporate farmers and ranchers get most of that.

That's why they keep voting Republican. The Republican party believes in handing out welfare to whose who don't need it (e.g. Big Oil), but really want it, and are willing to pay a kickback.

This needs repeating, our farmers have to compete on a supposedly level playing field but the dole paid to American and EU farmers and ag corporations makes it an uphill battle. It's amazing the way the right picks on the poor but never the well off parasites.