Liberals have one unique characteristic. This is something we can say about the liberals of 100 years ago, who gave us the first big bite of liberalism, namely the income tax, to contemporary liberals who are trying to force socialist healthcare on America.
What is the characteristic all liberals share? What is it about them that we need to exploit in order to defeat liberalism once and for all?
It is simple. Liberals are always wrong.
In two years, we will mark the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty.
How’s that one working out?
For fifty years, we have seen massive increases in welfare spending. Welfare spending is now the third largest item in the Federal Budget. It is actually so large and so confusing, the General Accountability Office cannot identify all of the welfare programs the government has nor can it identify all of the money spent on welfare programs.
Welfare programs, at least as of 2010 cost the average American household $638 a month.
If we suddenly eliminated all welfare spending and allowed Americans to keep that money, almost every American household could immediately afford at least one new car, if not two. That would do more for the American economy and the American people than welfare has.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson announced his war on poverty. If it is a war, we are supposed to win, right?
According to the Cato Institute, we spend $1 trillion a year. To what result? The poverty rate is the same as it was when the war on poverty started in 1964. The Obama Regime has increased welfare spending by over 40% during its tenure.
Poverty? Still the same and we now have the Great Obama Depression, which if anything is only making poverty worse.
Here is a simple question. Has welfare ever eliminated poverty?
The answer is no.
America is not the only nation with welfare programs. Have any of them ever eliminated poverty?
Can a liberal name a single nation anywhere that has implemented a socialist welfare system and has been able to shut it down because the programs have succeeded in eliminating poverty?
The answer is no.
It never has because welfare programs do not work. All they do is subsidize poverty and as anyone who has studied economics knows, anything you subsidize, you get more of.
If you try the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, you are not just insane. You are perpetually wrong and terminally stupid.
This is the story of liberalism.
Liberals are never right.
That is why the left must resort to their typical ad hominem attacks. That is why they produce commercials showing Republicans pushing granny off the cliff. That is why they go through the minority communities screaming racism. Liberals cannot handle the truth and the truth is, their ideas suck and so do they.
We the people have the right to demand that if our government is going to spend money on anything, that the money be spent wisely and if a program or programs do not work, they must be eliminated.
Unfortunately, the government does not have a clue if welfare programs do anything other than to buy votes for the Party of Treason.
On June 1, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing on Welfare Spending and Inefficiencies.
Patricia Dalton, the Chief Operating Officer of the General Accountability Office testified that she could not identify the number of welfare programs, how much money was spent on them or even the percentage of programs that were actually accomplishing the purposes they were created for.
Only a government run by liberals thinks this is a good idea.
Not only has no government ever eliminated poverty through welfare programs, no nation has ever provided decent healthcare through a massive socialist government program. They have all failed.
In Britain, they are now privatizing their National Health Service. Back in April, the far left Guardian reported the delays in healthcare were becoming intolerable, forcing the British Prime Minister to act. Patients were being denied joint replacements, cataracts surgery and hernia repairs because the socialist healthcare system was broke.
In Britain, like all other places where socialist healthcare has been tried, it has failed. Yet what does the left want to impose on America?
You guessed it.
Those on the left are terminally stupid and perpetually wrong. They do not deserve respect; they deserve contempt for what they are doing.
What we need is an aggressive Republican Party that will not only call them on their stupidity but will also push a strongly conservative agenda. If the Republicans will not lead on this, we must force them to.
Liberalism has failed every time it has been tried. The Free Market not only works but it has made America great. It is time we forgot about the war on poverty and started a war on socialism.
Unlike those on the left, we conservatives believe in winning our wars.
Tags: accountability, general, liberalism, obamacare, office, on, poverty, socialism, spending, war, More…
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on The federal government was never supposed to be a philanthropic body. As individuals, we are supposed to be free to make such decisions ourselves. If you happen to be religious, you might ask yourself if the Christian faith wanted you to give of yourself, or if it wanted you to have someone else do for you with your money. If Dan's mother needed medical care and could not afford it, I count myself as one of those that would help, but I would entrust nobody to make that decision for me.
The founders knew that the best way to take care of all such problems was for the citizens to join together and find solutions outside the power elite. Once we abrogate that responsibility to some government body, we are abandoning each other, and just hoping that some bureaucrats are going to do the right thing. But the track record of federal social programs is right in front of us, and it is one of abject failure for a reason -- the money is not theirs, and the doors to special interests and corruption swing wide open for those in power to enrich themselves.
The founders looked at world history, and noted this was a recurring theme in humans in positions of power. They preferred that the potential crooked middleman be removed. Instead of animosity building between the takers and the takees, like we have now, we might have givers feeling good about themselves, and recipients feeling grateful and maintaining a higher level of self-esteem.
None of these ideas are new. The founders knew it, and I keep posting Bastiat because he put it into words as he fought the socialists:
| A Fatal Tendency of Mankind |
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man— in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
Anyone that struggles with these social questions could save themselves a great deal of time wrestling with the guilt complex thrown at us by socialists by taking 30 minutes and reading the whole thing:
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Sims on Steve, a lesson from this "granny". In real life, not fantasy, granny would be taken care of by her family or would have private retirement available to her. Grannies aren't the ones who are getting a majority of the social services. It is more the young women who have multiple babies w/o being married. It is the worker who is indeed 25 that claims he cannot work because he " hurt his back". There IS retraining available from SSA to help him/her find jobs they can do. You will also notice that these poor people can do virtually anything else they want to do and I have seen them... playing basketball, skiing, driving a boat, spending all day fishing, etc.
I was not around when SS and Medicare was passed so don't hold me responsible for that. I am 62 years old and, in fact, had to go on disability several years ago. "I" wasn't able to just run down to the SSA and sign up. I was off work and bedridden for over 2 years, with a thick medical history and I was denied the first time. Then when I appealed and went before the SSA judge, he asked the most stupid questions. While I was truthful, it would be so easy for someone who wanted to play the system to do so.
What is needed is a thorough overall of all the welfare programs and a checks/balances to see that everyone on the programs are truly qualified. As to SS/Medicare, since it was put into place many years ago and paid into by employees and employers alike, there will need to be an equitable solution for all parties, both retirees and those younger who are still paying in. We have a plethora of very smart people who could figure this out if allowed to do so. (FYI, the Medicare premiums will double in 2014 when obamacaretax is more implemented...THAT is really going to put a strain on those of us who are on SS or SSDI. Believe me if I could work, I WOULD be working as I've worked since I was 18 years old and paid into the system).
Medicaid, Schips, food stamps, WIC is suppose to be a temporary help to those who need it; not a way of life which it has become. If the government was truly willing to "fix the system" and the liberals willing to do something besides use it as a political tool, it could be made to be more efficient and actually help those who need it.
Also, just because we are conservatives, doesn't mean we don't care about "granny" or the "poor children". We just think it could be done with less government intervention and certainly with less outlay of funds and would actually benefit the needy.
Permalink Reply by Dan Rozenboom on TO BE CLEAR: The statement above is in response to
Steve Johnson when he posted:
"So, you want to eliminate Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Public Schools?"
Permalink Reply by Ed Stoneham on Yes! Yes! Please! The sooner they are eliminated from the wasteful, inefficient hands of the federal government, the better off we all are.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Good article!
But sorry, Judson. I must disagree with an important item presented above.
Which one?
"Welfare programs, at least as of 2010 cost the average American household $638 a month."
I also find that number quoted here in American Thinker. What's my problem with it?
That's merely a first pass number!
That's $638 per month that would ultimately have been reinvested one way or another back into the economy! And effectively earning interest, one way or another. Creating jobs. Buying "stuff". Building factories to make the "stuff".
$7656 per household, in 2010. Certainly more in 2011.....
This is the key to success, really.
We are broke. The Federal government has taken those monies needed for growth. We are shrinking, living on the few shekels saved in the past, and borrowed stolen from our progeny, our future.
It must end....it must be reduced. And America can again flower in greatness, as in the past.
Vern,
I think you're talking about the multiplier effect I learned about in Econ 101.
It was kind of amazing to learn that money is NOT a static thing. It expands, it contracts depending on fiscal policy, public mood, world events and other factors. That ebb & flow dynamic is something the libs never understand or maybe they just ignore it for the sake of argument.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Yes, but on a grander scale scale than I've ever seen presented. An integration on a national level, full economy. I take it you are not into Keynesian Economics, then?
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on It would be interesting to see that multiplier effect used to calculate how much money one would have after 40 years of work if instead of it being paid into the SS and medicare programs, it was put into an account controlled by the individual.
Do you think it might be a bit larger than the IOU that is reserved in your name in the federal vault?
Permalink Reply by Dennis L on Q. Why do we listen to the terminally stupid and perpetually wrong?
A. Because like Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, MaoTse Tung, Kim Jong Il, and Barak Hussain Obama they are great orators with a charismatic presence. They can sell their arguments and have you believe that government under their leadership is going to solve every problem, make the country great and give you everything for free. Unfortunately the worlds most tyrannical leaders were/are great orators. They are great sales people that prey on naive, disaffected, debased and ignorant liberals.
Permalink Reply by Thomas on The Johnson administration and Congress declared a war on poverty but then when they designed and implemented strategies and tactics they designed operating systems that were such that when put in motion they had, figuratively speaking, loaded their guns and opened fire on the nation's productive private sector economy--on people who were producing items of material worth--a war on American prosperity.
The war that was declared was never fought but the war that has been fought is now being won. What was once the most diverse and most robust national economy that had ever existed is being sacrificed on the alter of statist pathocracy.
Permalink Reply by Neil Thomas Goeckerman on I am not sure but I think that firing squads trump all!
Permalink Reply by Lawrence Brown on It is funny how we complain about liberal leadership in Washington these days. The people voted them in over and over. 50 years of war on poverty and the voters still don't see how nothing has changed,except more welfare recipients. Until voters get their head on straight things will continue to be the same. Most voters are only looking out for themselves and the hell with everyone. We really started losing this country when we decided that God and Country did not matter. I don't see much change in attitude of Americans. Over the years we have told our kids that it is easier to survive on someone else money. Entitlements breed laziness and ignorance into our society. Entitlements pay more to sit home than for working. When money runs out those on entitlements will be lonely as there income from other will be gone.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
