[Mr. K]

The ONLY thing liberals love about the poor is their vote.

[Myrddin]

The recently announced intent of the FCC to re-regulate broadband is exactly a case of using the force of government to control private property (network equipment) for the use of "the poor" who haven't paid for it. The more likely scenario is price controls that will drive current providers out of the business. Less access for everyone.

[worst-case scenario]

The article starts with a statement:

“In proposing welfare-state programs, by necessity liberals always make an important assumption. They assume that there is wealth in society. After all, if there is no wealth then what good would welfare-state policies do? The welfare state operates on the assumption that there are people who are earning wealth or have accumulated wealth. Those are the people from whom the government takes money in order to redistribute it to the poor.”

Okay, “they assume that there is wealth in society. ... The welfare state operates on the assumption that there are people who are earning wealth or have accumulated wealth.”

But he never states directly that the assumption that there is wealth in society is the reason WHY liberals believe government should take money from them and give it to the poor.

Is he saying that this assumption is wrong, that there aren’t those with wealth in this society?

Or is he saying that liberals want to give money to the poor from the wealthy just because they don’t they anyone else should have more than anyone else, because they are Levellers? Or are they just jealous of the wealthy? Or are they do-gooders, who have an idea of what constitutes “poor” and don’t believe anybody should live like that?

The rest of the article doesn’t explain, just attacks “liberals” for their imagine responses to various scenarios (postulations which may or may not be accurate.

But I still don’t know what the assumption I’m supposed to be making, according to him.

[loveliberty2]

So-called "liberals"--the Far Left in America--have acquired power by promising "goodies" in exchange for votes. They have bought their offices with promises of "hope" and "change," just as every charlatan in the history of civilization has done, and they are "transforming" America from a place of refuge for the oppressed to a facsimile of the places from which those oppressed millions fled.

America's liberty and prosperity for over 200 years was based on another idea, for the earnings of hardworking citizens were protected from the coercive hand of government by a written Constitution which did not allow the Obamas of America such "taking" power. Hear Samuel Adams:

"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams

And:

“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams

On May 1, a Catholic Priest named Father Corapi made a speech in St. Louis, in which he stated, “socialism is not in conformity with biblical teaching. Socialism doesn’t profit the poor, but only brings poverty and misery. Socialism is about the seizure of power. It only brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.”

Both Father Corapi and Samuel Adams knew what the bottom line on such "utopian" ideas is about. It is about accumulating power over individuals by promising to "help" them.

[Le Chien Rouge]

By lower the costs of goods through supply innovation, WalMart has done more for the poor than the federal government ever will.

[FreeKeys]

In proposing their array of welfare programs to help the poor, liberals operate under the mindless assumption that wealth exists naturally in a society. Even worse, they give nary a thought to the possibility that a society in which wealth is growing is the greatest benefit to the poor. Worst of all, they don’t consider the distinct possibility that their own tax-and-redistribute policies tend toward destroying the base of wealth in society, thereby relegating everyone to poverty. -- from the article

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray N. Rothbard

"If you wrote down on 5x7 index cards what the average American college student knows about economics, wadded those index cards up into one spit wad, and then shoved that spit wad up an ant's butt, it would rattle around in there like a BB in a boxcar." -- Neal Boortz

"Wealth may provoke envy, but it seldom provokes the truly venomous levels of resentment provoked by achievement."-- Dr. Thomas Sowell

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." -- Autobiography of Mark Twain by Samuel Clemens

[A_perfect_lady]

All this careful and patient explanation is wasted on liberals. They aren’t fighting poverty; they’re fighting inequality. The goal is not to eradicate poverty, it’s to eradicate wealth.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[maddog55]

Liberals say that they love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged... and they are trying real hard to make us all poor, needy, and disadvantaged.

[highlander_UW]

Liberals say that they love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.

Always a mistake to put too much weight on what liberals "say". What they mean is, they love that there ARE poor, needy and disadvantaged...because when there is felt need liberals can play on fears, hopes and hatreds to garner votes.