Why do conservatives always say liberals are supporting poverty?

Question

with social assistance programs, when their solution to the problem of poverty is to do........nothing?

syahayayay...Clinton's welfare reforms from the 90's have cut welfare rolls in half.

elo...thanks for not answering the question

Answer 1

It actually wasn't Clinton's welfare reform bill it was congress's. A Republican congress that finally had a chance to make some reforms to the welfare system brought to you by various Democrat Congresses.

Answer 2

What are the odds a Liberal is going to listen to good old fashioned common sense from a Conservative? Oh well, here goes. Whether you want to listen is up to you.

First, what you have to understand about Liberals is that they want people to be dependent on the government. This is how they keep voters from switching allegiance. For example, have you ever experienced Socialized medicine? Trust me, it's a taste of the third world. I know from experience, and you don't want any part of it. But why do people like Hillary advocate socialized medicine? To entrap people into voting democratic. They figure that once the program is in place, every family will be forced to support the Democrats to ensure those "freebies" keep flowing.

Now, regarding welfare: it was a trap. Once you got on it, you could never get off. This was not some oversight. This was not some unfortunate, unintentional side-effect of the program. Democrats wanted to keep people dependent on welfare, and hence always count on the black and poor vote.

It was Newt Gingrich who wrote the welfare reform bill, and he and the Republican congress strong-armed Clinton into signing it. Clinton had no participation in the process.

Liberals want people to be poor. They need to perpetuate poverty to stay in power. Liberals need a nation of needy, subservient drones, not independent cowboys. They want people to look at the government like it is their only salvation.

Do you know what would happen in Mormon communities if welfare were discontinued? Absolutely nothing, because Mormons internally support their own. Private charity is much much better at alleviating poverty. Citizens used to be much more charitable before government started taxing them to death.

Conservatives fixed the welfare mess. They found a way to assist people to get off welfare, and everyone is better off for it. Had it been left to the democrats, we'd have millions of people still trapped on that system, never getting the opportunity to advance in society.

Answer 3

I know I'm wasting my time. But what the heck, from my corporate headquarters, It's my dime...
When Jefferson wrote about Freedom in the Declaration of Independence, he was talking about MONEY! The more you have, the more free you are. The more you have, the more choices are made available to you. If you have no money, you have less choices. If you have no money, then you are a slave to your creditor. You are not FREE.
Social programs such as Welfare do not support upward mobility. Capitalism supports upward mobility. Social programs undermine capitalism. It rewards what should be privilege to those who did nothing to earn it. And for those who did make the effort, it strips them of that privilege. Social programs then, tend to create a false (and offensive) sense of entitlement.
Why bust your hump to get ahead if in the end, whatever gains you made are only going to be taken from you and given to those who did not work? What you end up with is a retarded (slowed/stagnated) situation where no one tries. You then become dependent upon the government for everything and when a hurricane comes along, your government runs and hides, leaving the buses parked and waiting. The mayor -- forgot you. The governor -- was "Unavailable." And FEMA could not do anything, nor could the National Guard -- state's rights trump federal government. They weren't invited in.
When we stop measuring the "success" of a program by seeing how many we can get enrolled and instead, measure its success by seeing how many we can get off the program by makng them self-sufficient,then and only then will I support these worthless programs. It's a generational problem now.
Give them a fish and they'll eat tonight. Teach them to fish and they'll eat a lifetime.

Answer 4

Because when you tax people you take away their money. Because social programs aren't that great and don't do much to get people that are dependant on them off. Not to mention the bueracrats suck.

Perhaps it's also because conservatives aren't in favor of taxation. Because when you cut taxes it's not just for the rich, it's also for the middle and lower middle class and the small business owners.

Perhaps it's because the social programs aren't that successful and they are sick of paying for them. Perhaps it's because some of these conservatives are actually more in touch with regular people. Some of them may actuallly have worked themselves up the system, instead of being born into it.

Answer 5

Perhaps a little more study would help you. The largest INCREASES to Social Security and Medicare in HISTORY came from Bush. The largest commitment to AIDS research. Bush again Skippy. 55% of our Federal Budget is spent on Social Programs.
Largest % in History.
We are tired of "Welfare for Life" and the fact that the Liberals continue to tell people are hopeless to help themselves, only Libs can help, so vote for them.
May want to check you facts again there, then check back with us...

Answer 6

Because some of us think that social welfare programs, in their current state, discourage motivation.

Conservatives don't think we should do nothing, necessarily. I happen to think that private charity would do just as good if not better than government sponsored welfare. Currently, $X are taken from my paycheck to fund a notoriously mismanaged system. If there were no (or less) tax-funded welfare, I could donate that money to a private charity that had fewer administration costs (for example). Many conservative agree that support of the poor should be voluntary, not mandatory.

BTW - I don't support corporate welfare, either.

Answer 7

As a conservative, I understand that there will always be a small segment of our population that will need help. Those people are mentally or physically handicapped and therefore can't help it. There is also going to be those in 'temporary' need because of loss of jobs, etc. That too is a given.

I think that the misunderstanding exists between the two because we're not revamping our present system which encourages people not to climb out of the muck. It's the generation after generation of these same folk that is troubling. Instead of continuing to throw endless money and aid in their direction, it's time to do something to get them on their feet and make them realize that they can contribute. I don't care if that contribution is cleaning houses! But sitting on their butts and feeding off of the public trough is not something that able-bodied individuals should get away with.

Must of us don't want to do away with help, because it will always be needed. We simply want to clean house and insure that the money goes to those who are incapable of helping themselves.

Is that bad?

Answer 8

Exactly. Cons believe that everyone who is in a bad situation is there because they are dumb or lazy and didn't do like they did and make success happen. They believe all men are created equal no matter where they are from. I want to see what they would do with 2 crack head parents and nothing but ghetto surrounding them. They would do the same thing those people do, get caught up in he BS and have a poor existence.

How can a poor person get an education with one parent unknown and the other working 2 jobs, on drugs, or in jail? Who can help with homework? Who can teach them that homework needs to be done? Even if they get through high school, Republicans cut funding for lower-income students to get an education. Are you serious? How can you say that all they need is education when they cut funding?

Person under me says name someone that benefited. Me. I got the scholarships I needed to finish school.

Answer 9

They are.Instead of insisting that people wait until they are financially capable of raising children etc. the democrats support the "if it feels good, do it" mentality.Democrats and liberals have no morals and expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for irresponsible peoples actions.

Answer 10

It's more like Liberals are enablers.
They enable some to rely on the public dole to live a life with out working. For some this is acceptable for some its not. Those that work hard, suffer the tax burden find it difficult to feel sorry for some, not all on public assistance who are to lazy to or apathetic to work hard and pay their own share of society's tax burden.