The Progressive Patriot

Let me remind conservatives that one big reason that they lost the e******n is because of their insistence on maligning those who are to some degree dependent on government services, while at the same time calling for cuts to those services. They cling to the rhetoric of “makers” and the “takers” the latter of course being anyone who ever needed some help getting by. They call people who are just trying to survive in a cruel economic environment leaches and parasites. They believe, or pretend to believe that anyone can go out and get job- a job that pays a living wage anytime they wish if only they were not so lazy and content to be on the dole. They continue to complain that 47% of people pay no federal income tax but fail to acknowledge that the majority are working but too poor to have an income tax liability, in part due to the earned income tax credit and child care credit supported by Republicans. They also fail to acknowledge that these same people pay other federal taxes, as well as state and local taxes which are highly regressive.

This harsh swim or sink attitude emanates from the same people who expound a steadfast belief in lais-sez faire capitalism, and minimum regulations and safeguards against corporate excesses. They are often anti union and opposed to raising the minimum wage. What they fail to understand or acknowledge is that poverty, unemployment, and underemployment are built into the capitalist system. Even in a regulated economy, the need for labor expands and contracts as the result of a multitude of factors at home and around the world. When the economy shrinks, excess workers are sidelined. At the same time, the workforce expands and contracts, also as the result of factors that we can’t control. There is also the issue of matching sk**ls to the available jobs geographically. Rarely is there a perfect match between those seeking jobs and the needs of business , and there is usually excess labor.

In addition they fail to grasp the fact that not only does a free market necessitate a government assistance on occasion, but the social safety nets are good for capitalism. When the economy shrinks as it always will from time to time, programs are needed to maintain societal stability and a workforce that will be to be ready to work when the system needs there services again-to work for and enrich the capitalists. In their book “Regulating the Poor: The Function of Public Welfare”, Francis Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward make this argument, and go on to say that relief efforts not only maintain social order, but also reinforce the work ethic by ensuring that people are only given enough to subsist without being to comfortable.
I will submit to you that the only way to eliminate the much maligned dependency is to regulate business to the extent where they must put people before profits and provide a good job for all regardless of the bottom line. However that would be SOCIALISM and we can’t have that. Or, we could re-establish alms houses. What we cannot do is to have it both ways. We must either accept tighter controls on business practices to prevent the exploitation of workers in the name of profit, or stop persecuting the less fortunate victims of the unsavory side effects of free enterprise .

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Cloward and Piven? CLOWARD AND PIVEN??!!! That explains a lot about you.

The Progressive Patriot

Really? What does it explain?

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Cloward and Piven's book is the defacto standard for all would-be c*******ts/socialists. It is a very anti-social book that spells out in very clear terms how to bring down a government system. In fact, it is the playbook that many (but not all) liberals use in dealing with the government, and people who do not agree with their world view. It is in fact being used against the United States today. So, that you would quote from Cloward very definitely explains something about you.

Now, as for your post, some of what you say is true. The Republican party is definitely out of touch with most of America. I think the same is true of the Democratic party as well, but they are much better at spinning issues. Sadly, I don't think that your argument is correct. I think the real problem is that there are more people in America who want handouts from the government than those who don't. I think that's the real reason the Republicans lost. This is the end result of decades of liberal agenda being made manifest. It all started with the Progressive era, and really took root during FDR's administration. The moment you give people handouts, they acquire a taste for them like a drug, and they want more. Do it long enough and they become addicted. Once they become addicted, they become your s***e. S***ery is the only end result of a welfare system. It deprives people of their dignity, and the self respect to make more out of themselves. It is for that reason that many people who are in the system make no effort to live outside the system. Ironically, there are other laws in place that only serve to reinforce this attitude. Many people will actually lose the benefits they have if they have an income greater than a certain amount (amounts vary by state). This is the essence of what a taker is. They are the disenfranchised poor who see welfare as an entitlement that they have earned. They don't see it for the bondage that it is.

The Progressive Patriot

That's right anything that smacks of liberalism, anything altruistic is a c*******t conspiracy to bring down the government. You have no idea what you're talking about. Did you ever work with the poor, people on assistance?

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Look up the definition of liberal. Those of you who call yourself liberal don't match it. You're not open minded. You're close minded. You cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with you. Liberalism as it exists today more closely resembles a psychosis. A mental disease. You are not altruistic. Your methods only bring about s***ery. You think you do people a great service when all you do is make them dependent on the government. "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life." You "give". I teach. That's the difference between us. And to answer your last question. Yes. For many years. My father is a retired ordained minister. I spent most of my childhood helping poor people. My father gave everything we had up to the point where we were just as poor as the people we were helping. I have personally witnessed the result of your "charity" and it is anything but. All it does is pollute peoples minds into believing they are entitled to the scraps the government doles out. They stop trying to improve themselves. What you call charity k**ls the souls of people. Thank you. You can keep your "Charity"!

Otter

While we are talking about the group dependent on government, I think it should be noted that this includes a lot more than welfare and social program beneficiaries.

I would include a large number of highly paid government workers and those dependent on programs other than social welfare. This includes teachers, police, prison workers, and other groups that have become dependent on federal spending. The idea that 'government dependent' means poor people is false. I didn't like Romney but he got a bum rap on the 47% comment.

If I were a conspiracy fan, I would say the government's plan is to make as high a percentage of the population as possible dependant on them. And that's one reason why I'm not concerned about the effects of the sequester. We need to fire a lot of THIS type of "welfare" recipients.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

I agree, but I would be careful about painting ALL government employees with too wide a brush. There are some who are dedicated and do good, essential work.

Having said that, can you imagine what the cost will be of the new Obamacare leviathan bureaucracy will be? Will there be any added value created by it? I think not.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

First, I agree completely about liberalism. Modern liberalism is more closely aligned to f*****m than to classic liberalism. As for altruism, liberals are not altruistic, that means giving of oneself. They don't do that, they simply give away other peoples' money. That's theft.

As for charity, there are two types in my opinion. The first involves giving to the truly needy, disabled who cannot help themselves. That charity is necessary in civil society.

The second type of charity is giving to those who could, but won't help themselves. Most government-sponsored charity is the second type. That accomplishes nothing except to enable the most worthless to remain the most worthless.

Otter

[quote=Voice of Reason

I agree, but I would be careful about painting ALL government employees with too wide a brush. There are some who are dedicated and do good, essential work.

Having said that, can you imagine what the cost will be of the new Obamacare leviathan bureaucracy will be? Will there be any added value created by it? I think not.[/quote]

Didn't mean to include all gov. workers, but could we eliminate 10% and be better off for it? Easily.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

I'll readily agree with that.

Kentoidi8 Loc: Ellenton, FL

Holy Diatribe, El Chardo, you Progressive fanatic you. You treat this web site like your personal College of Socialist, oops, Progressive Knowledge. I'm glad you mentioned Cloward -Piven so I can bring up their theory of destroying a country from within by overspending ala BHO.
As I noted before, refer to Trevor Louden's book, The Enemy Within. Despite all those fabricated myths about Capitalism I have seen it work quite well in Russia, the major part of that old Socialist Marxist heaven, the USSR. I left in 1982 when things were bad. My favorite store for the locals then was called by us the cows head because the only thing in the meat case was a sparkling clean cow's skull. Back there again in 1993 and things starting to improve after the revolution, circa 1991. I toured Russia in 2009 and could not believe the astronomical improvement Capitalism had brought them especially regarding the most obvious items, clothing, food and autos. The famous government department store along Red Square had morphed from a flea market to a series of boutiques, the markets had anything your stomach would desire and traffic jams were the norm. I suppose your target audience is composed of those who are able but find it easier to continue living in a "Nanny State" where exertion is frowned upon. A state conversely from a Utopia, a land where all will be poor. In the USSR I lived in all but a few were destitute.

The Progressive Patriot

So what's you point. This country is not socialist leave alone Marxist, and neither is PRESIDENT OBAMA. I think I made that point.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Sadly, that is a point you cannot make. President Obama is as Marxist as his departed father. I mentioned BHO's psychological profile in another post. One of the classical trends of children with abandonment issues is to take on the ideals of the one who abandoned them. BHO has clearly demonstrated this through his own writings. He is Marxist. He surrounds himself with Marxists. He is fundamentally t***sforming the United States into a Marxist or at least Pseudo-Marxist country. All the evidence is out there. It's available to all who wish to see it...for now. That you don't see it is because you are ideologically blinded. You won't see reason because you won't open your eyes to the t***h.

The Progressive Patriot

"You won't see reason because you won't open your eyes to the t***h"