When was the last time the left was right?

[lendaddy]

Ok, not original, but it's early so suck it.

What is it that keeps the faith with you guys? The countless programs (both domestic and foreign) that continue to fail, yet you never seem to question the approach.

Welfare - How's that working out? You have enslaved an entire generation of inner city children via comfort in poverty. You believe you are helping, but you are infact having the exact opposite effect. Can you point to ANY metric that shows the success of this program?

Now you call us heartless, you are wrong. We will gladly care for our truly helpless and sick. I ask you to drive by your local ghetto and look at the "helpless and sick" wandering the streets and/or dropping thunderous dunks on the ball courts. Yes, you created this existence for them. You have created an army of uneducated malcontents with no motivation, respect or talents.

Lendaddys' reason for failure: The welfare system is not based in any logic or understanding of human nature. The system actually robs the receivers of dignity, confidence or any form of pride. The basic motivators of the human have been removed. There are no negative nor positive motivators built in (punishment/reward). Adversity is a great motivator, the actual goal here is to remove that motivator?

There is NO sign of success, only failure in the system, yet it remains a stple issue of the left.

This same theory has now been advance to ailing nations, Africa for instance. The theory of the left is to simply give them that which they need (actual goods and services), in effect creating the largest ghetto the world has ever known. Again I ask you for any signs that this approach is working. Seriously, it's getting worse, why do you think that is?

The fact is that you cannot accept any amount of pain or discomfort to be experienced along the road to self sufficiency, and as such you prevent that goal from ever occuring. Human nature will work these things out if you let it, you refuse. Instead you create another army of helpless in Africa waiting for the UN food truck to roll into town (procreating in the tents) instead of letting their inuition, ingenuity, and basic human senses guide them to a self suffient alternative. Some will not make it, most will(same as now) but in the end they will create a real society that doesn't need anyone to feed/cloth them.

The greatest accomplishment of the lefts approach to the two above situations is how good it makes them feel to "do something", I can think of no other.

You will see my statements as cold and greedy I imagine, and that only proves my point. You cannot see past your own emotions to find the logic behind my arguments.

Much more I could say, but I hate long posts and this is up there.

[gaijindabe]

The last time...... hummmmmmmm......

Bi-lingual Ed?????

Nahhhhhhh, that never did work, still does not work.

Nobody on that side brave enough to pull the plug.

[Tishabet]

Actually, I agree with your position on welfare.
There was a time when there was no welfare system, and I doubt (although I have no numbers to prove my conjecture) that poverty, homelessness etc was any worse for lack of formalized public aid. I think the welfare has bred a couple of generations of people who think along the lines of Scrooge's "Are there no poor houses?" In other words, "I'm not going to help....I pay the government to help." This extra barrier/buffer of government between the average citizen and the truly needy has been a counterproductive step for lifting the poor, the unemployed, etc by their bootstraps, IMHO. I am much more likely to freely give of my wealth if I know the majority isn't going to end up in the pockets of the government that administers the program.

[Mule]

April 27, 1912

[techweenie]

Good lord. So today's "left" are being tagged as originating welfare?

You really have to go back to the 1930s to find anything the 'left' got wrong?

Do you realize that nobody responsible for the New Deal is still alive?

If you expect somebody to step up and define "welfare" you have to think back to what preceeded it. The poorhouse preceeded it. For 100 or so years. In fact, formally or informally, there has been welfare or 'relief' on a community-sponsored basis pretty much since before the founding of this country.

Do you want to draw a line and specify just what aspect of 'welfare' is bad? Can you name a program? Or is it just the whole concept of offering food and shelter to poor people?

[gaijindabe]

How about Section 8? Have a kid and get an apartment!

What about the poor shlub downstairs who pays $900 a month for the same unit?? Sucker.

[techweenie]

I don't know much about Section 8. I do know that in larger cities, a person working in any number of minimum wage jobs cannot pay for rent and food. The notion of subsidizing that kind of person's rent doesn't trouble me much.

Just what does the Section 8 program cost? Anyone have the numbers?

-------edit--------

Okay, got it. $18 billion, or approximately $180 per taxpayer. A little over 20% of what we're spending per year on Iraq.

[lendaddy]

Like I said Tech I could go on but I picked a couple of iconic liberal cornerstones that I feel represent the flawed ideology. Are you saying that liberals no longer support welfare or other entitlement programs? How do you feel about "humanitarian aid"? Again, it's the failed ideology.

Here's another one. Your hero Jimmy Carter and his Habitat for Humanity program. Great intentions, poor results. find a few in your area and drive by them. See how well they are cared for when they are given for nothing..... It's just another example of how the lefts philosophy clashes with human nature. If intentions cured ills your party would be effective though. So you've got that going for ya, which is nice

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
the notion of subsidizing that kind of person's rent doesn't trouble me much.

Just what does the Section 8 program cost? Anyone have the numbers?

-------edit--------

Okay, got it. $18 billion, or approximately $180 per taxpayer. A little over 20% of what we're spending per year on Iraq.

You don't get it Tech, we're not comlaining that it costs too much. We're trying to point out that it does more harm than good to the recipient in the long run. Don't you see that? That person living in Section 8 just learned a valuable lesson: pump out the kids and the government will care for me. Well done fellas, well done! She has a grand life ahead of her now, her children too.

YOU ARE HURTING THESE PEOPLE

[gaijindabe]

What does trouble me is setting up a very young person to play house, just because they have a kid.. Why not use incentives so they stay with their families or otherwise pay for some kind of group setting?

It may be noble not to send low-income unmarrieds to "the projects" - but when you give something to someone (like a nice apartment), others work very hard for, there is something unfair about that..

And with housing, healthcare and food taken care of - why even bother to move beyond minimum wage? Why let and education and hard work spoil a good thing??

[techweenie]

I see. Older folks who've lost their pensions and disabled people need to learn this valuable lesson, too?

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by lendaddy


Here's another one. Your hero Jimmy Carter and his Habitat for Humanity program. Great intentions, poor results. find a few in your area and drive by them. See how well they are cared for when they are given for nothing..... It's just another example of how the lefts philosophy clashes with human nature. If intentions cured ills your party would be effective though. So you've got that going for ya, which is nice

len - got to disgree with you on this one. There are two groups of HFH homes in Bed-Sty, not far from me in Brooklyn. They are cornerstone (along with the church and local school) of a tough neighborhood that has gotten better in the past few years. The families in these homes have a 20 year mortgages - it is good deal, but not free...

Now the public housing around the corner, you dont want to know...

[Racerbvd]

Ended slavery, no, a Republican did that.

Civil Rights, , nope again, Republicans made that happen too.

Blacks did better in school, college, management, upper management and starting their own businesses, nope, that largest gains on all the above happened under President Reagan, a REPUBLICAN.

Encourage new business, nope, they punish those who try and succeed, TAX,TAX, tax.

The New Deal, well FDR was a dem, and we are really paying for the huge welfare system 80 years later.



Protect American service men abroad, wrong, dem leaders are encouraging torture and harm to those who serve when they compare our guys to nazis

Protect out 2nd Amendment, wrong again, they are trying to disarm us while at the same time, create special rights for behaviors.

The Great Society, LBJ screwed us there too, and that was the start of the decline.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Like I said Tech I could go on but I picked a couple of iconic liberal cornerstones that I feel represent the flawed ideology. Are you saying that liberals no longer support welfare or other entitlement programs? How do you feel about "humanitarian aid"? Again, it's the failed ideology.

Here's another one. Your hero Jimmy Carter and his Habitat for Humanity program. Great intentions, poor results. find a few in your area and drive by them. See how well they are cared for when they are given for nothing..... It's just another example of how the lefts philosophy clashes with human nature. If intentions cured ills your party would be effective though. So you've got that going for ya, which is nice

Len, I too have to disagree here, on the home, not the worst president, jimmy carter, who never met a dictator he didn't like, who paved the way for the terrorism we are fighting today, for compromising American security when he gave away the Canal. No one president has done more to harm America than carter.
But, the HFH homes are well built (I have helped build them and seen first hand) and are truly a hand up, not a hand out. The foreclosure rate is very low and since the people who live there have to not only help build their own home, but help build others as well, so their is a real sense of pride in that ownership and the mortgage has written into them about maintaining the properties.

[Tishabet]

Originally posted by techweenie
If you expect somebody to step up and define "welfare" you have to think back to what preceeded it. The poorhouse preceeded it. For 100 or so years. In fact, formally or informally, there has been welfare or 'relief' on a community-sponsored basis pretty much since before the founding of this country.

Exactly! I don't disagree with the idea of public assistance, I just disagree with how it's administered through a government prescribed welfare system, as well as the culture of dependancy it has fostered. I would rather be giving my "relief" money to people who need it than to people who know how to work the system.

[stevepaa]

lendaddy.
Disagree on HFH. My family has worked on five such homes and they are well cared for. They are not free. The owners worked on them, have mortgages and there are restrictions on selling them.

byron,
The Republican party was brand new when Lincoln "ended slavery". But sometimes I think that is as much an exaggeration as saying Reagen ended the cold war.

Not sure how Republicans get credit for civil rights. I don't recall many Republicans in the marches. Seems to me that a Democratic administration had to send troops down to protect the civil rights of marchers.

We all get taxed, so what do you want, no taxes. Pay your way?
The next thing you'll decry is clean air and clean water acts?

Don't think FDR new deal and welfare are tied together, but you sure make a stretch on that.

Any more baseless generalities?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Tshabet
I would rather be giving my "relief" money to people who need it than to people who know how to work the system.

I don't imagine you'll find anyone to disagree with you on this.

The question is -- and always has been -- what percentage of people getting help have no recourse vs. the "cheaters" who foster a 'welfare lifestyle?'

Then you have to ask: "What is the administrative cost of eliminating those without recourse from the system?" Does it exceed the actual expense of the "cheaters?"

IOW, does the discussion over-focus on the bad apples and risk hurting disabled veterans and other disabled; the infirm and the elderly poor?

Anyone have a good source for what percentage of money goes to each group?

[lendaddy]

This is how the argument degenerates, where we want our money spent and the stories of abuse. It gives the left an out "Oh yea, of course we're against abuse, we just need to tweak the system". Bull****, it's not about that at all. Again money aside....the approach is counterproductive to the end goal. The poor are not your pets, they are capable human beings. These systems rob them of most of what life has to offer.

And as for HfH I could be thinking of something else. A couple buddies repair these homes and tell horror stories. Maybe it's not HfH, but maybe it is.

[lendaddy]

Also, it implies that we Conservatives hear this and begrudgingly say "OK, if you promise to manage our money better we'll let you help these people".
The left thinks that's all we care about ($) so whenever these programs come up in argument they push the argument toward money, when the real argument is philosophical.

[techweenie]

Len, tell us how the disabled (vets and otherwise) and the elderly and infirm are -- by your definition -- capable human beings and apparently unworthy of help?