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.
Why?
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.
Permalink Reply by Kristin Fecteau on ah, I like your new terminology! The Party of Socialism, I like that better than the Party of Treason. Amen to all!
Permalink Reply by Norman Zink on EXCELLENT, MUG!
Permalink Reply by JOHN DELASAUX on Thanks, Kristin, for a common sense outlook.
Saying "The Party of Treason" makes Independents angry at us.
Saying "The Party of Socialist Failures" tells a viable story which Independents can accept.
We will lose the election without a lot of Independents voting with us.
Let's always think about the Independent response, when we write and speak.
Permalink Reply by W. Michael King, Ph.D. on Where ever socialism embeds its cancer, it eventually kills the host. Before death, the suffering of the once-able gradually increases as the health declines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc
Permalink Reply by Lizzie on Can we start by dismantling the myth of European sophistication? Because European sophistication can only show us how to bankrupt states, and simultaneously lose the Cold war and the Crusades, what? 23 years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Now THAT'S losing!
Permalink Reply by John S Bacsenko IV on Read somewhere that Americans cut loose 'European sophistication' 236 some years ago. It was right then, and it's rings true today. you're on the right track Lizzie!
Permalink Reply by Virginia Gomez on IT SEEMS THAT THE BLACKS SHOULD BE OUTRAGED --- AND ASHAMED OF BEING THE ONLY RACE THAT HAS SO MANY ABSENT FATHERS---
MAYBE THEY SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON TALKING TO THEIR MALE CHILDREN ABOUT TAKING RESPONSIBILTY FOR THEIR ACTS AND MAYBE THE WOMAN SHOULD TEACH THEIR DAUGHTERS ABOUT MAKING MARRIAGE AND SEX NOT SOMETHING TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. MAYBE THE CHURCHES THAT THEY ATTEND SHOULD FOCUS MORE ON THIS ISSUE AND MAKE IT A PRIORITY AND MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME HOLLYWOOD TYPE PEOPLE THAT WOULD STRESS THIS ISSUE. OR MAYBE I AM JUST " WISHFUL THINKING"? NOT BEING REALISTIC ENOUGH.
Permalink Reply by Ronald Sorrells on Permalink Reply by Noel Smith on Permalink Reply by Lizzie on Carl, let's start with investigating fraud? And streamlining the "administrative costs" that often suck up to 60% of government charity budgets. Then let's look at how to transition some of the operations to private charities.
It can be done, it can be done reasonably, it can be done well. God loves a cheerful giver! But plan in advance how you are going to give.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Good point, Lizzie. The argument should not be about whether or not such people ultimately receive whatever benefit they receive, but about there it comes from. If it is coming from the government, it is simply money taken from someone else by force. If it comes from charity, it is money given voluntarily.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
