Posted on 02/21/2002 8:21:47 PM PST by Archfiend
You rarely hear anyone question whether a liberal is compassionate or not do you? While conservatives have to prove to a doubting public that they're not heartless, liberals are just assumed to be philanthropic by default. Now why is it that? It's because the liberals in the Democratic Party and in the media have defined compassion in a way that serves their interests. Let's look at this in a little more detail.
Why is that liberals will tell you that they're more compassionate than conservatives? They'll tell you that liberals care about people, whereas conservatives don't. Why? Because liberals support government funded social programs that conservatives either won’t support or support to a lesser degree.
Now I have two questions for you.
Why does anyone think that taking money from taxpayers, wasting an obscene amount of it, and then giving the money that's leftover to other people who you hope will vote for you is compassionate?
What if I came over to your house tomorrow, took a hundred dollars out of your wallet, gave $30 of it to a homeless guy I ran into across on the street, and then asked him to vote for the candidate I support in the next election? Do you think that would make me compassionate?
My answer to that would be no. In fact, I'd say it's wrong for someone to take your money, give it to someone else, and claim to be compassionate because of that. You see the liberals NEVER pay the bill for the compassion that they claim to have. They always expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab while they pick up the credit.
Furthermore, have you ever considered the consequences for the liberals supposed compassion? Have you ever heard the old saying "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime?" Well you can add something to that saying. "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him another fish and he’ll eat tomorrow but he’ll expect another fish the next day, and the next day, and the next day. In fact, if you give him fish for enough days in a row he may grow accustomed to the idea of having you feed him for the rest of your life."
That’s why we have to consider the negative of having a child grow up dependent on government aid are. What about a kid who spends his whole childhood watching his mother take food stamps and eating school lunches? Don't you think it's likely that a lot of these kids are going to grow up expecting the government to take care of them just like it always has? Instead of believing that "when the going gets tough, the tough get going" don't you think many of these kids think "when the going gets tough, quit trying and wait for the government to take care of you?" That’s the ugly upshot of the liberal version of compassion.
You see, liberals believe the very people they claim to compassionately care about are too stupid, irresponsible, and incompetent to take care of themselves without the left’s help. That’s the real core reason why liberals always seem to be in favor of expanding government power and increasing taxes. It’s because in their opinion, you’re too much of a boob to make it through the day without some liberal plotting out your every move. That’s why they think they have to take your money and spend it for you. You can call that a lot of things, but to call it compassion is a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one. In fact, I’d say compassion fascism fits the bill a lot better.
Democrats reward needy people with government programs so they can continue to create programs, increase the number of needy people and INCREASE government...
Conservatives reward successful people, so they can continue to be successful, and REDUCE government
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.