The sick, twisted part of far-left Liberalism is how they unconsciously hurt those people they purport to help. Liberals think they're altruistic and oh-so-compassionate, but let's see how that squares with the facts.
For decades, Liberals touted welfare on the premise that poor people needed help. While they're were all feeling warm and fuzzy about their good deeds, they were condemning entire generations to permanently stay on the dole. The reasons were two-fold. First, there was no mechanism to wean yourself off welfare. If a single mother wanted to get a job, she would actually have to accept an income reduction in order to work, and then she'd have to pay for child care and medical care on her own.
Conservatives confronted liberals about the unintended consequences of the liberal welfare program, but the liberals were too busy..... feeling all warm and fuzzy about their "good deeds".
The second way welfare entrapped people was that it preyed on their laziness. I once saw a 60-Minutes report which showed an entire extended family, ranging over four generations, numbering over 100 people, none of whom had ever held a job. I will never forget this fat welfare momma looking defiantly into the cameras and shouting, "I ain't gonna work for no minimum wage. I has my pride!"
What about the liberals support of unfettered immigration? All they do is stres how anyone should be able to waltz across the border. Hmmm... now how is that going to do these people any permanent good? Without a mechanism to become legal citizens, these immigrants are condemned to live on the shadowy margens of society. Also, by taking the pressure off Mexico to end its legendary corruption, these "do-gooders" are just perpetuating a bad situation.
Did I get off the subject? Sorry.
2006-06-21 14:12:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that this is a very fair question....there are many "liberals" who are not poor and don't need welfare -- case in point, Bill Gates. Many of my friends who identify themselves as liberals are as well off as my friends who identify themselves as conservatives. This sounds more like Ann Coulter talking...
2006-06-21 13:12:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many conservatives fail to do the learn they have confidence their conversing heads truly than their mind like Mr. comprehend all of it, which he does not, look on the data in accordance to the cutting-edge conservative palaver, we've been dropping billions on handouts to no longer worth those with out considerable consequence. that's fantastically lots organic fantasy. in actuality, from 1950 to 1980, poverty declined by making use of two/3: The some distance-good declare that government action does not income the adverse, or makes them worse off, basically does not accord with the data. per capita welfare money peaked interior the early Seventies, a time while the poverty fee replace into drastically declining. The poverty fee levelled off in user-friendly terms while government, under Uncle Reagan, scaled back social spending. Judging from the media, you may truly think of that a million/2 the gummint's budget is going to those rattling adverse people. not often. The U.S. budget isn't prepared (purposely so, one suspects) to make it effortless to establish how lots money is going to the adverse. In 1995, even however, the entire replace into approximately $116 billion. this is 8% of the cheap of $1519 billion. Now, this is easily actual money, yet study it to the 33% of the value variety spent on Social protection and Medicare; the 21% spent on protection; the 15% spent in pastime on the nationwide debt, or the 8% spent on handouts to enterprise (farm subsidies, S&L and financial corporation rescues, export/import guidance, tax credit, certain loans, repayment for promoting, etc.). right this is the way it breaks down: Medicaid (different than help to elderly, disabled, blind) - $32 billion AFDC (help to households with based infants) - $22 billion food stamps - $27 billion Housing subsidies - $22 billion college breakfast/lunch courses - $6 billion Head initiate - $3.5 billion Miscellanous courses - $3 billion persons, it truly is basically no longer the case that Your Moneytm is being stolen and given to the wastrel adverse. maximum of Your money (3 quarters of it) is spent on protecting you, helping you in previous age or unemployment, keeping the money you have interior the financial corporation, conserving farmers and massive enterprise happy, and paying pastime. the traditional survive welfare is basically 2 a million/2 years he forgets the welfare reform act of 1996
2016-10-31 06:33:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Erika 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, first off, we aren't inbreeding, keeping the family fortune in the family. There must be somebody to pay taxes, since you manage not to do that and somebody has to keep the plumbing running since you're so full of s**t. Then there's the guy who has to keep remodeling your house of cards and the painter who has to whitewash your past accomplishments. What would you do without us?
2006-06-21 13:54:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by changRdie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
that is so not true.most of the liberals i know are living comfortable lives.and live in really nice houses.and have never been on welfare
2006-06-21 13:15:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
After bush took office the economy plummeted.
2006-06-21 13:16:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Boober Fraggle 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wasn't aware that ADM, Halliburton, Exxon and Enron were liberal companies, but I'll take your word for it, dude. Thx4dapts.
2006-06-21 16:50:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
and yet another brilliant observation by America's finest, you're a meat head. Go back to reading comic books.
2006-06-21 13:10:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dr.Feelgood 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow way to stereotype, I guarantee I make more money then you Davey boy. I bet you never even went to college.
2006-06-21 13:12:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by se_roddy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
how are we all poor and run the media, Hollywood and all the universities at the same time?
2006-06-21 13:11:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋