The "traditional way of doing things" is what made this country the greatest in the world. Liberals/progressives are trying to change that into a socialist way of doing things. Even though it's been proven that socialism doesn't work. Liberal/progressives use the word "entitled" like a tool to get v**es. Some of the most wealthy people in this country are liberals/progressives. The so-called "super rich" generally haven't been "given" anything, they pay for what they get and apparently aren't "entitled" to anything. This country used to be known as "the land of opportunity" not "the land of entitlements". Liberals/progressives are changing it to "land of if you have more than me, give me some of yours".

Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of your definition. A conservative lives in the best of all possible worlds. They believe that it is their duty to stand in the road of history with a stop sign. There should be no change in the traditional way of doing things. Those in power or with huge fortunes are in those positions because they deserve to be. Poor people are in that position for much the same reason. If they need more money to live a decent life, they should depend on charity, not state aid.
A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care. It should be paid for by state funds and not just given to the super rich as a tax write off. The conservative would say, what tax write off? They earned it, it's theirs. If less wealthy folks need more money, they should work harder. Does that just about cover it?

That is the position of someone totally lacking in compassion. Unless you are personally volunteering to find one of the truly deserving of help and assist them out of your pocket then your position is heartless and indefensible. That does not mean that anyone who decides he can make do with less should be permitted to sit on his duff while others work to keep him alive. The problem is not in extending a helping hand but in ensuring this does not become a vocation.
Well since you mentioned it! Three years ago my wife and I took in an old Mexican feller. (Born and raised in California) he is a part of the family and always will be. Heartless you say, hahahahaha being heartless is providing for the lazy socialist minded turds. I love the stupidity the internet has provided the masses. Now why don't you run along and welcome a Viet Nam vet home like I did.
It also doesn't mean that the public has an obligation to maintain welfare recipients in the same manner as those who work and buy wh**ever they can afford. If it embarrasses the welfare recipient that their children don't have party dresses, there is an easy cure, get a job. If their household appliances are not the latest and greatest, too bad. Those who have those things got them the old fashioned way, they earned them.

If while on welfare they continue to breed like rabbits, without benefit of a husband or identifiable father then some limit should be imposed, such as remove the children from this environment since the parent is irresponsible. That parent should be advised that the next child presented for welfare will garner a jail sentence for her.

That is the position of someone totally lacking in compassion. Unless you are personally volunteering to find one of the truly deserving of help and assist them out of your pocket then your position is heartless and indefensible. That does not mean that anyone who decides he can make do with less should be permitted to sit on his duff while others work to keep him alive. The problem is not in extending a helping hand but in ensuring this does not become a vocation.

It also doesn't mean that the public has an obligation to maintain welfare recipients in the same manner as those who work and buy wh**ever they can afford. If it embarrasses the welfare recipient that their children don't have party dresses, there is an easy cure, get a job. If their household appliances are not the latest and greatest, too bad. Those who have those things got them the old fashioned way, they earned them.

If while on welfare they continue to breed like rabbits, without benefit of a husband or identifiable father then some limit should be imposed, such as remove the children from this environment since the parent is irresponsible. That parent should be advised that the next child presented for welfare will garner a jail sentence for her.

That is the position of someone totally lacking in compassion. Unless you are personally volunteering to find one of the truly deserving of help and assist them out of your pocket then your position is heartless and indefensible. That does not mean that anyone who decides he can make do with less should be permitted to sit on his duff while others work to keep him alive. The problem is not in extending a helping hand but in ensuring this does not become a vocation.

It also doesn't mean that the public has an obligation to maintain welfare recipients in the same manner as those who work and buy wh**ever they can afford. If it embarrasses the welfare recipient that their children don't have party dresses, there is an easy cure, get a job. If their household appliances are not the latest and greatest, too bad. Those who have those things got them the old fashioned way, they earned them.

If while on welfare they continue to breed like rabbits, without benefit of a husband or identifiable father then some limit should be imposed, such as remove the children from this environment since the parent is irresponsible. That parent should be advised that the next child presented for welfare will garner a jail sentence for her.

Totally lacking in compassion? Really? Was our government totally lacking in compassion before LBJ's war on poverty? Are you one of those who think that if something isn't done by government it can't be done at all?

How about this? I submit that any parent who is perpetually unable or unwilling to care for their own kids is, by definition, an unfit parent. I further submit that our current welfare system, which forces these children to live with these unfit, often abusive, neglectful parents is totally lacking in compassion.

If the welfare system had any compassion it would remove those poor children from the horrible environment they're stuck in and place them in foster homes or orphanages. Then the parents would have a time limit in which to straighten out. After the end of the limit, if they are still unable to support themselves and their kids, they permanently lose custody of the kids and all benefits.

When you stop and think about it, HeadStart is the governments' way of admitting the environment they're sentencing the kids to is horrible, and is a way of temporarily removing them from it without endangering the welfare state or Dem v**es. The fact that the kids lives and futures are destroyed is secondary to Dems losing a few v**es.

I think your right, but it's not a program that can just be stopped. How many are 100% completely dependent on entitlements? 50 million, or millions more? What we do need is a complete overhaul designed as a back to work program. We couldn't put millions on the streets and overnight stop entitlements. Problem is liberals won't allow a back to work program, too many over time would end up finding higher paying jobs, buy homes and figure out the republican platform better fits their lifestyle and democrats would lose v**es.

Totally lacking in compassion? Really? Was our government totally lacking in compassion before LBJ's war on poverty? Are you one of those who think that if something isn't done by government it can't be done at all?

How about this? I submit that any parent who is perpetually unable or unwilling to care for their own kids is, by definition, an unfit parent. I further submit that our current welfare system, which forces these children to live with these unfit, often abusive, neglectful parents is totally lacking in compassion.

If the welfare system had any compassion it would remove those poor children from the horrible environment they're stuck in and place them in foster homes or orphanages. Then the parents would have a time limit in which to straighten out. After the end of the limit, if they are still unable to support themselves and their kids, they permanently lose custody of the kids and all benefits.



When you stop and think about it, HeadStart is the governments' way of admitting the environment they're sentencing the kids to is horrible, and is a way of temporarily removing them from it without endangering the welfare state or Dem v**es. The fact that the kids lives and futures are destroyed is secondary to Dems losing a few v**es.

Totally lacking in compassion? Really? Was our government totally lacking in compassion before LBJ's war on poverty? Are you one of those who think that if something isn't done by government it can't be done at all?

How about this? I submit that any parent who is perpetually unable or unwilling to care for their own kids is, by definition, an unfit parent. I further submit that our current welfare system, which forces these children to live with these unfit, often abusive, neglectful parents is totally lacking in compassion.

If the welfare system had any compassion it would remove those poor children from the horrible environment they're stuck in and place them in foster homes or orphanages. Then the parents would have a time limit in which to straighten out. After the end of the limit, if they are still unable to support themselves and their kids, they permanently lose custody of the kids and all benefits.

When you stop and think about it, HeadStart is the governments' way of admitting the environment they're sentencing the kids to is horrible, and is a way of temporarily removing them from it without endangering the welfare state or Dem v**es. The fact that the kids lives and futures are destroyed is secondary to Dems losing a few v**es.