Posted on 06/06/2011 6:56:14 AM PDT by billflax
The budget debates have been illuminating. Apparently, those heartless tea partiers would gladly allow children to starve so millionaires can pay less in the way of taxes. The latter has been a recurring slander leveled against welfare reform in the ’90s and more recently in response to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.
No one starved then. What if Washington stopped doling out relief now? Would a vacuum prevail? It’s an odd presumption considering free markets have lifted so many millions out of poverty and America is the world’s most generous dispenser of private charity. Maybe sanctimonious liberals fear such a vacuum because they are notoriously stingy.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
LLS
The world is full of morons. We have managed to survive despite them--a measure of our genius. The wonder is that the world's not in worse shape than it is.
Let history be the judge:
On the side of expansive government, see Soviet Russia in the 20s and 30s, or Red China in the 50s and 60s, or North Korea today. In fact, name a Communist country that turned into a bread basket as a Communist country. Almost all of them say food production plunge or at best, stay the same.
On the side of limited government, see the increase in farm production in the United States and Britain during the mid-to late 1800s and into the 1900s when they were at their most free.
Slightly off topic, but over the weekend I heard a number of pundits praising Obama to the skies because he "saved" the auto industry. Makes me gag.
America has enormous, advanced auto manufacturing facilities. We have an army of skilled workers in the auto industry. We have sophisticated Supply Chains setup around the country. If GM or Chrysler went belly-up, what would happen? Would 3 million people lose their jobs, never to work again? No.
The bondholders would suffer. The stockholders would suffer. The Unions would suffer. But SOMEONE would come along, buy the factories, and put people back to work making cars. That's really quite obvious. It's the cheapest way to make cars -- buy ready-made factories which come complete with skilled workforces. They would be hot properties and would be scooped up quickly, and people would get jobs again.
But Obama claims that his Bailout boondoggle saved millions of jobs. I don't buy that for a minute.
"What if Washington stopped doling out relief now? Would a vacuum prevail?"
Not a chance.
Yes, but don’t be fooled by their obesity.
Yea, I can see that. I sit at the dinner table with my kids, empty plates and say to them: the rich got a tax break so I am going to let you start to death. /s/
What is a greater danger of putting women and children on the street is to continue Obama’s economic policies. Despite trillions spent on “stimulus” the number of long term unemployed today is greater than during the Great Depression.
I wish.
On August 7, 1932 a law came into force that stipulated that all food was state property and that mere possession of food was evidence of a crime. Among the most enthusiastic enforcers of the law were urban members of youth organizations, educated under the Soviet system, who fanned out into the countryside in order to prevent the "theft" of state property. They constructed and staffed watchtowers (over 700 in the Odessa region alone) to ensure that no peasants took food home from the fields. The youth brigades lived off the land, eating what they confiscated from the peasants. They often humiliated the starving peasants by forcing them to box each other for sport, or forcing them to crawl and bark like dogs. Under the pretext of grain confiscation, the brigades routinely raped women living alone.
Wouldn’t that fit in with mooch-elle’s “let’s move” stupidity? mooch-elle, the affirmative-action loser-queen, seems to want the children to lose weight so having them “starve” might do some good.
Food stamp brats are the fattest kids around.
Do these people who write these articles think we're idiots. Who do they think is standing in line behind the welfare queens at the supermarket while they check out their multiple carts of food, beer and cigarettes?
Children and the poor will always be fed. The question that needs to be asked: will the taxpayer starve if we continue to over burden them.?
Yes, Communism starves children. By taking away the means of families to care for their own children.
Otherwise . . . who in Hell’s Bells “lets” their children starve or their grandmother eat dog food?
Who are the people these Rats are talking about? When did these people become so numerous that entire governments must be focused on taking up the slack for them?
Not a chance.
Bears repeating.
As I said previously, who are the Rats always talking about, the supposed millions of people who "let" their and other people's children starve and their and other people's grandmothers eat dogfood?
Do Dems really believe that Americans, across the board, no longer have the capacity to be charitable and responsible?
On a similar note, I beliee that if government got out of the medical business altogether, at least at the non-"catastrophic medical event" level -- that communities would pull together and do incredible fund-raising for charitable hospitals -- as was done by many church and "ladies" societies prior to our human obligation to help our fellow man being forcibly outsourced to government programs and bureaucrats.
Americans are the most charitable people in the world. Especially if they had more of their own money through a fairer tax system, the "market" would create and sustain charitable programs that uniquely addressed local needs.
Exactly!
Good grief, this should be shouted from the mountaintops. The entire premise that there are millions of parents and families who won't or can't find a way to get basic food for their children and grandmothers is ludicrous.
I have been involved in various food pantries over the years and I can tell you that there are plenty of ways to "not starve" in America. And if the government would get the heck out of the way, more Americans would go back to supporting community-based, community-designed programs to address local needs.
And, yes, people would have to DO SOMETHING to access those programs, not just sit around collecting a check or waiting for midnight so their electronic benefits card is recharged.
But claiming people would sit around and starve, or let their children starve, or let their grandma eat dogfood rather than participate in local charitable efforts as needed is a pretty pathetic view of human nature. Of course, Liberalism is, in sum, a pathetic view of human nature.
Also needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Think about what Libs are saying here: that THEY, Liberals, will sit around and let children starve and grandma eat dogfood if the government doesn't provide otherwise.
That they, Liberals, can raise money for Haiti and AIDS research and whatever, but, no, it's impossible for them to conceive of the needs of America's true poor being addressed by charity rather than Big Government.
"In the 19th century there was no federal government welfare system AT ALL in America. So, exactly how many poor Americans who-were-not-stuck-in-the-California-mountains-in-winter died of starvation?"
Aside from episodes like the Donner party, starvation was simply not an issue due to effective private charity (the only real charity). By contrast, today's poor have a huge problem with OBESITY, not starvation. Think about that for a minute...
it’s impossible for them to conceive of the needs of America’s true poor being addressed by charity rather than Big Government.”
Yes, well said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.