That's easy. A "successful" social program is one which permantently sustains an ever-growing population of increasingly dependent subjects.
Liberals measure success by the number of people who are dependent upon the government. Conservatives measure success by the number of people who are not dependent upon the government.
“Wonder what a liberal’s idea of a “successful” social program is.”
That’s easy. It’s the one that provides tens of thousands of overpaid administative positions with fat retirement benefits plus it provides a guaranteed RAT voting block of several millions.
“Wonder what a liberal’s idea of a “successful” social program is.”
That’s easy. It’s the one that provides tens of thousands of overpaid administative positions with fat retirement benefits plus it provides a guaranteed RAT voting block of several millions.
Mary,
This is a simple yet profound statement. I am disgusted that I have never seen or thought of it myself. What is the definition of successful with regards to, specifically, welfare?
I do not know for sure. But I suspect that high numbers of families enrolled in this entitlement have caused it to be deemed successful. I, and most logical citizens, would likely see it just the opposite. A successful welfare system would be one that works so well it is no longer needed. Recipients would be going back to work and not need assistance at all.
Alas, I am sure they grade it differently. "We have helped 400,000 families that would otherwise be homeless and starving. This is the most successful program ever." or... "Because of the success of our program, we have returned 250,000 folks back to work and they are no longer in need of our assistance in order to support themselves and their families. Therefore, we are closing our doors for now."
In liberal eyes, the more poor people there are that depend on the government entitlements for their basic needs the more successful the program is. That is tragic. It means, somewhere, somebody is hoping for more poor people and more failure for more funding and their own job security. It is truly a case where in order for some welfare administrator to have a job, there must be poor people applying for help. Who would you root for if your own livelyhood depended on the suffering of more people?
Thank you for the thought.
Thousands and thousands of people, sitting at home, drinking beer, watching Am.Idol, and getting paid to stay there.....much like Britain, really.
Wonder what a liberal’s idea of a “successful” social program is.