We Are to Judge the Left Based on Their Intentions

[rushmc 18]

Yet the left want to judge the right based on results

Quote

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

Many, if not most of the welfare entitlements supported by the left today, only encourage those on those programs to remain living off our tax dollars

Are these people really poor?

Quote

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[9]
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty-three percent have Internet access.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.
Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.

In short, this so called New Deal was really not intended to help the poor per se. If it was, in that respect it is a total abject failure. But when viewed as a system of creating a permanent voting block it is a sucess.

And take some time to go look at the numbers of children born out of wedlock.
Under 10% when this started. Over 40% today. Blacks rate is 73%! Wow

We have helped very few people
Time to take a look and change the approach to something that benefits those who truly need help and get the bums back to work

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

Consider

Quote

We were only a few short years into the War on Terror when the Left demanded we pull the plug because of a lack of results. Yet 50 years into the War on Poverty declared by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, we’ve spent an estimated $22 trillion trying to alleviate poverty with little to show for it.

http://patriotpost.us/articles/29288

BTW
I know the content will not be addressed by those who are way on the extreme left

But the rest of us grownups can have a conversation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Declaring war on anything other than a country conveys a misunderstanding of both war and that thing.

Also, the problem with giving poor people money is they're just going to give it to a rich person.

[Boomerdog 0]

One cannot dismiss the thought that the Progressives are at the core a terminally insecure tribe whose personal lives are so insignificant that they must spend their time on Earth minding other people’s business and cannot withstand any complaint that they do so.

[ibx 2]

God dammit, liberal progressives want people that are less fortunate than themselves to have something to eat and basic medical care.

Those dirty fucking hippies are unbelievable.

[Boomerdog 0]

Good, then I'm sure you're OK for picking up the bill.

[Andy9o8 0]

Boomerdog

Good, then I'm sure you're OK for picking up the bill.

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

[Zep 0]

Andy9o8

***Good, then I'm sure you're OK for picking up the bill.

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

Damn you socialist, how are WE going to achieve a capitalist society with people like you around.

Gone fishing

[RonD1120 58]

Don't kid yourself. He is a 100% capitalist, marketing social justice to the dolts that have wool over their eyes. He laughs all the way to the bank.

Remember, you can't tell a book by the cover.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[SkyDekker 1,154]

RonD1120

Don't kid yourself. He is a 100% capitalist, marketing social justice to the dolts that have wool over their eyes. He laughs all the way to the bank.

Remember, you can't tell a book by the cover.

Exactly,

Some people here will actually try and ruin your business in real life. Guess the justification: Homeland Security.

The nazis had people like that too!

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***Don't kid yourself. He is a 100% capitalist, marketing social justice to the dolts that have wool over their eyes. He laughs all the way to the bank.

Remember, you can't tell a book by the cover.

Exactly,

Some people here will actually try and ruin your business in real life. Guess the justification: Homeland Security.

The nazis had people like that too!

We got more than just that Homeland Security Dept doing this shit

BTW, if you do follow, I am agreeing with you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

And take some time to go look at the numbers of children born out of wedlock.
Under 10% when this started. Over 40% today. Blacks rate is 73%! Wow

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I know a lot of people out of college who are starting families and putting off getting legally married. Hell, I have friends who have been together for 15 years, kids, great jobs, but aren't married legally. I debated getting legally married at all.... only difference now is we pay taxes out the wazoo compared to when we were not married on the government's books.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[rushmc 18]

LyraM45

Quote

And take some time to go look at the numbers of children born out of wedlock.
Under 10% when this started. Over 40% today. Blacks rate is 73%! Wow

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I know a lot of people out of college who are starting families and putting off getting legally married. Hell, I have friends who have been together for 15 years, kids, great jobs, but aren't married legally. I debated getting legally married at all.... only difference now is we pay taxes out the wazoo compared to when we were not married on the government's books.

For all practical purposes those you post about here are married
Because they are a family unit they support thier kids and do not need the government for help

Single mother families (for the most part) require this help
Tax dollars at work
And becuase those dollars are available, poeple do not worry so much about their actions as the gov will cover thier choices (even if they are bad choices) for them
This creates a class of people who then do not care about what they do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

One cannot dismiss the thought that the Progressives are at the core a terminally insecure tribe whose personal lives are so insignificant that they must spend their time on Earth minding other people’s business and cannot withstand any complaint that they do so.

Just like one cannot dismiss the thought that comments like that are dickish and trolling.

- Dan G

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

By all means and be my guest, spend your $$$ on whoever and whatever you like. I won't tell you how to spend your $$$.

P.S. Likewise

[Andy9o8 0]

Boomerdog

Quote

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

By all means and be my guest, spend your $$$ on whoever and whatever you like. I won't tell you how to spend your $$$.

P.S. Likewise

P.P.S. - Neither of us get much choice. Which is my point.

For your reading enjoyment. Read any one you like. Hell, read 'em all:

https://www.google.com/#q=%22hamid+karzai%22+wealth

Those are your simoleans at work, my friend.

[lawrocket 3]

ibx

God dammit, liberal progressives want people that are less fortunate than themselves to have something to eat and basic medical care.

Here's where progressives go wrong. I'll show you why. You could have written this: "God dammit, liberal progressives will use their own resources so that people that who are less fortunate than themselves to have something to eat and basic medical care."

That's not what progressives do. Progressives, by definition, want someone else to do it. Hence, a progressive will NEVER EVER buy a prescription for a sick homeless child. John Lennon is a fine example - he'll sing about the goal of no private property while kicking a homeless guy off of his.

Progressives want someone else to do it. That's why a thousands of progressives drove their gas guzzlers and even flew in planes to NYC to protest against CO2 emissions. Again, nobody else should do this, but they have better reasons than anyone else.

This is a progressive. They want change, and want someone else to change it. And sure, Leonardo DiCaprio can put a temporary halt to his jetsetting with oil magnates in South America to let people know that he stands against what he does. Others should not be allowed to do what progressives do. And others should be required to do what progressives won't do themselves.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

***Good, then I'm sure you're OK for picking up the bill.

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

I don't understand why this is an either/or proposition. It should be an individual choice of how they spend their own money.

Andy - can feed a bum
Rush - can line anyone's pocket he likes
me - I might not do either, I might purchase bacon
Billvon - might not do either, he might buy a solar panel, maybe bacon, or a new pro-track
Wendy - she can buy whatever the heck she likes, I'd not be surprised if she feeds a good friends, or gets a present for her kid
etc etc etc

it crosses the line when I start to tell the other four what to spend on - for that matter, when people group up into two camps and the goal is spending OTHER'S money, that when it become a 'choose between two things and only two things' - it's sad that this is the place where some people BEGIN the debate.

let alone the strawmen we see once it does devolve that way -

"I'd rather feed a homeless child than buy a missile"
"I'd rather defend a city with single moms from invaders than feed some freeloader that could get a job today"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

rehmwa

******Good, then I'm sure you're OK for picking up the bill.

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

I don't understand why this is an either/or proposition. It should be an individual choice of how they spend their own money.

Andy - can feed a bum
Rush - can line anyone's pocket he likes
me - I might not do either, I might purchase bacon
Billvon - might not do either, he might buy a solar panel, maybe bacon, or a new pro-track
Wendy - she can buy whatever the heck she likes, I'd not be surprised if she feeds a good friends, or gets a present for her kid
etc etc etc

it crosses the line when I start to tell the other four what to spend on - for that matter, when people group up into two camps and the goal is spending OTHER'S money, that when it become a 'choose between two things and only two things' - it's sad that this is the place where some people BEGIN the debate.

let alone the strawmen we see once it does devolve that way -

"I'd rather feed a homeless child than buy a missile"
"I'd rather defend a city with single moms from invaders than feed some freeloader that could get a job today"

Since Day One it's always been about how to divvy up the pie. And your "strawman" point aside, there actually is a certain degree of zero-sum-ism at work. For example, I'll betcha that if the post-WWII USA (especially post-, say, 1963) spent one-third less on the breathtakingly massive amount it's spent on projecting its military power overseas and providing the security umbrella for other countries, the US would still be safe and prosperous, and it would have been able to afford a universal national health care system like every other industrialized democracy-ish nation on the planet has had for the past 40 years.

[rushmc 18]

Andy9o8

*********Good, then I'm sure you're OK for picking up the bill.

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time.

I don't understand why this is an either/or proposition. It should be an individual choice of how they spend their own money.

Andy - can feed a bum
Rush - can line anyone's pocket he likes
me - I might not do either, I might purchase bacon
Billvon - might not do either, he might buy a solar panel, maybe bacon, or a new pro-track
Wendy - she can buy whatever the heck she likes, I'd not be surprised if she feeds a good friends, or gets a present for her kid
etc etc etc

it crosses the line when I start to tell the other four what to spend on - for that matter, when people group up into two camps and the goal is spending OTHER'S money, that when it become a 'choose between two things and only two things' - it's sad that this is the place where some people BEGIN the debate.

let alone the strawmen we see once it does devolve that way -

"I'd rather feed a homeless child than buy a missile"
"I'd rather defend a city with single moms from invaders than feed some freeloader that could get a job today"

Since Day One it's always been about how to divvy up the pie. And your "strawman" point aside, there actually is a certain degree of zero-sum-ism at work. For example, I'll betcha that if the post-WWII USA (especially post-, say, 1963) spent one-third less on the breathtakingly massive amount it's spent on projecting its military power overseas and providing the security umbrella for other countries, the US would still be safe and prosperous, and it would have been able to afford a universal national health care system like every other industrialized democracy-ish nation on the planet has had for the past 40 years.

We spent 22 trillion on the war on poverty since it started
Remembe the new deal?
anyway


22 trillion is not enough?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

spent one-third less on the breathtakingly massive amount it's spent on projecting its military power overseas and providing the security umbrella for other countries, the US would still be safe and prosperous, and it would have been able to afford a universal national health care system like every other industrialized democracy-ish nation on the planet has had for the past 40 years.

or - had we spent less on the military we'd be safe and prosperus....and we'd have spent less (rather than assume that money is congress's to spend on other things)

sometimes spending less just means the citizens get to keep their money -


I also don't see that 'zero sum' thing you are talking about - they aren't taking the same and just picking an choosing, they are taking more and more and fighting over who gets to spend the 'extra'. I'd love a zero sum game where we get to trade off budget decisions, not best, but much better.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

Here's where progressives go wrong. I'll show you why. You could have written this: "God dammit, liberal progressives will use their own resources so that people that who are less fortunate than themselves to have something to eat and basic medical care."

That's not what progressives do. Progressives, by definition, want someone else to do it. Hence, a progressive will NEVER EVER buy a prescription for a sick homeless child. John Lennon is a fine example - he'll sing about the goal of no private property while kicking a homeless guy off of his.

Progressives want someone else to do it. That's why a thousands of progressives drove their gas guzzlers and even flew in planes to NYC to protest against CO2 emissions. Again, nobody else should do this, but they have better reasons than anyone else.

This is a progressive. They want change, and want someone else to change it. And sure, Leonardo DiCaprio can put a temporary halt to his jetsetting with oil magnates in South America to let people know that he stands against what he does. Others should not be allowed to do what progressives do. And others should be required to do what progressives won't do themselves.

Conservatives do the same thing. They just want to spend someone else's money on different things.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Conservatives do the same thing. They just want to spend someone else's money on different things.

absolutely - we need one thing. A fiscally conservative party that stays out of people's business.

we have two things - a spendthrift parties that butts in and tries to tell people how to live their lives. And another one exactly the same.

but at least people can spend hours arguing "hey my party is less stupidly idiotic than the other party so we should go down that road to destruction instead of the other one."

so we got that going for us.....which is nice

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

absolutely - we need one thing. A fiscally conservative party that stays out of people's business.

we have two things - a spendthrift parties that butts in and tries to tell people how to live their lives. And another one exactly the same.

but at least people can spend hours arguing "hey my party is less stupidly idiotic than the other party so we should go down that road to destruction instead of the other one."

so we got that going for us.....which is nice

Yes, we have always been at war with East Asia

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Yes, we have always been at war with East Asia

yes, bacon and/or pineapple does make most foods even better

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,475]

>yes, bacon and/or pineapple does make most foods even better

So YOU are the reason that pizza has been going downhill for the past ten years!