If you had a doctor who lost every patient, would you want him working on you? If you had a lawyer who lost every case, would you want him working on your lawsuit?
There is a group with that kind of a track record, so someone needs to ask the question, why are we listening to them?
The group that has that kind of record are the Democrats. If they were professional, their actions are so bad; their license would be revoked.
Today, the Washington Examiner reported that Democrats were training for the election this year and their response to every issue was going to be racism. As conservatives and Republicans offered free market alternatives, the response the Democrats are planning is these are racist alternatives.
Yes, the free market is so racist and that is why Oprah Winfrey is the world’s richest woman. That is why Kobe Bryant, Jay-Z, Don King, Bill Cosby, Magic Johnson, and Tiger Woods are so wealthy. There are many other millionaires and billionaires the free market has worked for. The free market does not care about race.
The left has made war on freedom and the free market in America for decades.
Their ideas are not just bad they are stupid.
The left screams that we must respect them and their ideas.
Why the hell should we?
Let’s start with the basics. Name me a successful social program. I cannot think of one. There might be one but that is it and the number of failed social programs goes on to infinity and beyond.
Unfortunately Republicans far too often bite on this and go with the liberals.
All too often we hear that drivel about the safety net. What the hell did we do before there was a government safety net? The answer is we had private charity that took care of those down on their luck but the system did not tolerate fraud the way government poverty programs do.
Liberals scream if you even talk about cutting social programs, but the truth is they are absolute failures. The safety net is not a safety net. It is a trap.
The government subsidizes poverty and one of the first rules of economics is when you subsidize something you get more of it.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. If this were a real war, we would have surrendered long ago.
Every program the left has tried, has failed. There is a reason why Barack Obama is the food stamp president. His programs have failed and poverty is the end result of his programs.
Poverty is the end result of socialism. Socialism has never generated wealth. All it does is increase poverty.
In 1960, the illegitimacy rates among whites and blacks were similar. Then came the war on poverty. Today three out of every four black children are born to single mothers.
Because the government created incentives for teen pregnancy and they totally destroyed the black family. In 1960, a black child born had a 52% chance of reaching age 17 living in a household with a mother and a father. Today that chance is 6%.
Being a single parent is the fastest ticket to poverty.
A child born into a single parent household will almost certainly grow up in poverty and there is a great chance the child will end up in the criminal justice system.
Leftist policies have destroyed the black family and have wreaked untold havoc on the economy.
Every time we have listened to the Party of Socialism, we have paid the price for it. They tell us they have all the answer and their answer have never worked in this country or any other country.
It is past time we call them out for the failures they are and tell the American people it is time to ignore people who are so screwed up they could not find their heads if they were searching for it with both hands, standing in front of a mirror.
The problem is the schools and universities - one generation learns the lesson the hard way, gets old - no one listens to them when they warn the younger generation about the progressives - the kids listen to the schools more than their parents or grandparents and the cycle starts all over - ignorance is the left's way of staying in power. = I lived and had to work from the Carter to the Reagan administrations and I could see the difference - grew up in the 50's = although liberalism was all over the place then, still was so much better than today - so when someone like the demagogue Obama starts spouting the same old cliches, I can see what is coming - but my children (except one) and grandchildren listen to what they have been taught in school - a viscious cycle.
Gail, it's so true.
They always target the youth.
In the 20th century, we saw some great advances in our society. We weren't prepared for the far-reaching consequences of breaking up the family. While we notice the consequences of losing multi-generational living, you won't find many seniors who would give up their independence of living in their own house and driving their own cars. At least, not a minute before the keys are pulled out of their hands! And most two-income families can't care for their own children (at least during the day), let alone seniors who need care. Some families make it work with different shifts, that's tough. I've taken care of babies and I've taken care of a senior, but I would be pretty frazzled if I had to do both at the same time.
The cat's out of the bag.
Now the question is, how much can we adapt our message?
How do we teach timeless values to kids (and adults) of today?
What the left has done to the poor is actually criminal - they've brainwashed them and taken away all hope, freedom and rights. They are just one big herd of sheep trapped in the vices of big Government. Republicans are responsible for this too!
Actually though if you think about what Judson said the Democrats were going to use for their racist alternatives it shows the rapid decline of the left and with our help we can bring them to their knees. Thanks Judson, good blog.
The strategy of the left is to divide and conquer -- they pit one race against another, the young against the old, the poor against the rich, and on and on and on. We need to unite as individuals against the big-government politicians -- "us" against "them." The Constitution always favored the individual over the position of the government (which always claims to serve the "greater good").
You are right, charity took care of those down on their luck. Where did they git the money to do this? They got the money from the high income people that paid 90% tax.In other words the tax payer paid 90% of that safety net.
Your last sentence seems to confuse the money used by charities to administer aid with the money obtained by the government from the 90% tax rate. Are you implying that the 90% tax rate generated the money for charitable causes? Nobody paid 90% because the 90% taxation was avoided in many ways. One of those ways was to donate to charity -- it made them feel good and the government didn't get the money. It was not the money confiscated by the government through taxation that helped the poor, it was the money kept out of the hands of the government that did so.
The liberals want to increase the tax rate of the wealthy while eliminating the deductions, steal most of the money while sprinkling a little of it here and there in order to brag about "helping" the poor, and ignore the fact that government handouts hurt people in the long run.
There is a definable, describable reason that the so-called "War on Poverty" was already a lost war even before the first volley was fired. There were insightful people--even in Washington with its poverty of insight--who tried mightily to explain why the war, as designed, would be a futile undertaking. LBJ declared a war on poverty but then he and Congress designed a campaign wherein the federal agencies loaded their guns and opened fire on the nation's most productive people and those who were economically most prosperous--the only rational allies that a government could hope to have in fighting a winning war on poverty.
Just as darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat, poverty is the absense of prosperity. Prosperity does not just exist naturally somewhere in the Universal ether. Prosperity exists ONLY when it is produced using a continuous, ongoing process. A war on poverty need not be the futile undertaking in which we have been involved for more than 45 years.....But it is not a game for fools and idiots.
Well put. There will always be a subset of people that have the strange desire to live in poverty. These are people that thrive on being victims. The more the liberals try to help them with our money, the more they will have to throw away to maintain their victim status. Not admitting that humans are a strange lot and that there will always be a certain percentage choosing to remain victims is the flaw in liberal handout pretzel logic. A war on poverty will always be a war that can never be won. Perhaps we should have a war on the "relentless pursuit of that which is not possible" -- we could call it a war against liberalism.
The link below is to a fairly long and thoughtful article written by John Stossel in which he explores the psychological motivation of what I think is the subset of people to whom you refer.
I agree. Donning blinders and then trying to wage a direct war on poverty will never be a winnable war, but.....would undertaking to increase and/or grow national prosperity with some of those who are riding in the wagon out of the wagon helping to push be an achievable objective?
Lyndon Baines Johnson was securing his prosperity (1964).
Ten years earlier "Lyndon introduced legislation in the Congress to "give" Judeo-Christian Temples & Churches "Tax-Free Status" if "The Jews & Christians Kept Their Collective Mouths shut About Partisan Politics".
This "initiative" Opened the Door for churches to receive $Billions of "Contributions from their Members" because "The Member's Contributions were also Tax Deductible".
Lyndon just "sounded stupid" but he was slicker than Obama, Clinton and Roosevelt all rolled together !