Liberals and Dependence
by Big Dog on Nov 8, 2011 at 16:05 Political
Liberals are raised to depend on government. This is how they think and feel about everything. Labor unions, government workers, college students, and any number of other groups have liberals in them who think that everything should be provided by the government. While temporary measures to help people are a worthy goal, the liberals among us start to become dependent and demand that things be made permanent.
They want the nanny state to take care of them.
This is often hidden in demands for their “rights” that are not actually rights. They will tell you they have a right to a job, a living wage, no cost health care, endless unemployment, public housing, big pensions, and any other item they can get the government to take from the producers in society and give to them. It is almost always couched as a right.
The government is willing to oblige and creates programs for all people because the government wants people to depend on it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare are government programs that were established to enslave people. The government requires people to participate (in some of them) and then uses the programs to threaten and scare people. Vote for me or the other guy will take your [fill in the blank]. You old people will be eating cat food if you vote for so and so because he will take your Social Security.
These programs have created groups of people who have become dependent on the government and now cannot live on their own. They will live and die at the whim of government.
The problem is that these programs have become so ingrained and have been touted as rights for so long that people fight hard to keep them and oppose any change. They do this even when faced with the reality that these programs cannot be sustained. They do it because they have become dependent.
This mentality is evident in the Occupy crowd currently infesting cities around the country.
In Southern California several street cart vendors found this out the hard way. A coffee cart vendor and a hot dog vendor are both located at the same place as the San Diego Occupiers, Civic Center Plaza.
They started out by giving coffee and hot dogs to the Occupiers at no cost. Then they stopped that practice and the Occupiers turned on them. The Occupiers threw body fluids (blood and urine) on the vendor’s carts.
Those carts will need to be cleaned or replaced because of the attack by the Occupiers. The vendors have also received death threats.
This is what happens when someone does something out of the goodness of their hearts. The liberals believe that the gesture is an entitlement and attacks when that “right” is taken away. These parasites have no more claim to the coffee and hot dogs that belong to the vendors than they do to the money that belongs to the taxpayers.
No one in the TEA Party has done anything like this and yet, Democrats and liberals around the country stand with the Occupiers and support what they are doing.
Why not? Hell, liberals think that they are entitled to your stuff and those in elected office are no different.
It is time to evict the Occupiers.
As for you vendor types who think you are doing a good thing by giving your stuff to them, I have a piece of advice that comes from the zoo.
DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, liberals, lies, occupy movement, Soros, support, vandalism, vendors, violence
Maybe it’s just me as I’ve been saying this for a while but isn’t charity supposed to start at home? In the past (at least within responsible households) if a young girl got pregnant, her parents helped her to raise her child until she was able to do so herself. Often for the child’s entire life in the instances of mothers who were ill or addicted. Families took care of their own whether they be elderly, sick, or disabled.
Now, the government is actually paying family members to be caregivers for their own. What kind of scheme is this? People being paid to “foster” their own grandchildren. Parents often seeking out diagnoses that will make their children eligible for SSI and all kinds of special programs which in far too many cases are not needed (and funded by our tax dollars).
Freedom and rights come with responsibility. Yes, you are free to have as many children as you would like to have but you must be responsible enough to care for them (and yes that includes insurance for their medical care, too). You are free to choose a nomadic life with no job and no bills but you are still responsible for feeding yourself and seeking out your own shelter (legal stuff – not make-shift camps out in the plazas where we have to smell ya).
I saw a huge billboard on my way to work that says “Healthy Food is a Right.” What idiot thought that one up? Where is anyone guaranteed food just for showing up in life? And now it has to be healthy food. Soon it will have to be free-range, organic, only-the-best-will-do Vegan food.
And IMHO, this post hits the nail right on the head. We have a dependent and entitled group of society whose general malaise in life makes them hate the very air they breathe so they want to make the rest of us miserable as well. Not only do they expect us to pay for them to eat and to have babies and to have shelter and to have healthy foods and of course let’s not forget their can’t live without item of a free cell phone, now they are doing to us what they did to those vendors. They are crapping all over the very people that provided for them all this time. The 53% of people that fricking work for a living and pay taxes. The more I know about people – the more I love my pets.
“The 53% of people that fricking work for a living and pay taxes.”
You do realize that only 53% paying federal income taxes does not imply that the other 47% are out of work? The right hates class warfare until it comes time to lump together a group of people you can’t stand an justify your claims by suggesting they are lazy free loaders.
Actually she did not imply that the other 47% did not work. You inferred that but it was not implied. She said the 53% who work AND pay taxes (as opposed to the 47% who work AND don’t pay taxes). It is a matter of understanding English. It is not a matter of class warfare on her part it is a matter of a lacking educational sytem on yours.
Your statement is an indictment of the educational system.
Of course you would defend the same class warfare you wage yourself weekly here.
Hey Adam, is it true your slogan is ” They can have my food stamps when they pry my cold, dead teeth from the government tit”?
Yeah, yeah, yeah we all hear you, Adam, like we have the other countless times you comment with the same rhetoric. First of all, the whole thing and that’s the best you got? True, no one said the other 47% are not working, just not paying federal income taxes from which they get money back every year that they did not put in. In addition a lot of those living on our tax dollars are lazy freeloaders and it has nothing to do with class warfare. It’s cultural and/or nurture. That’s the point of this whole thing.
Spare me the lectures. If you want to donate your money feel free to do so but Dems using their political BS to take from those of us who would rather choose to whom our charity is disbursed and giving to those they deem worthy or in need is stealing, unconstitutional, and the cause of class warfare. It has nothing to do with justifying my OPINIONS. I don’t have to – that’s what makes them opinions. I see the freeloaders and you would too if you weren’t too busy sympathizing with them. My tax dollars (city and state at this point but no doubt federal is not far behind as we are looming on the edge of “bailing” out states) are funding those freeloaders who are defecating on cop cars and spreading gonasyphaherpales (yeah I totally made that up) or whatever the STD of the day is.
Is it too much to want people to contribute to their own existence? I think people receiving any type of welfare be it medical, food assistance, housing, you name it, should be required to work in some fashion 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for their charity. They could provide day care for low income people who are working or clean up the streets or even the little tent cities ya’ll are so fond of. Why is there such resistance on earning what you get rather than qualifying everything as a right
and using someone else’s money to provide it?
“I think people receiving any type of welfare be it medical, food assistance, housing, you name it, should be required to work in some fashion 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for their charity.”
Of course. People getting welfare are obviously busy not working so we might as well enslave them into labor projects nobody else wants. No class warfare at all. Move along, move along…
People who receive welfare should do some work for it- it is NOT a right, bubt a privilege to be living in the most prosperous (until now)country on Earth.
Adam, if you had leeches sucking your blood, would you say, “Yes, they are entitled to my blood- they worked hard to climb my leg, so they can suck on me all they want.” Or would you burn them off, as they are BLOODSUCKING LEECHES!
Call a spade a spade, Adam- as that is whar these OWS and other liberal SOBs are- face it, no matter how you dress it up, a crap sandwich is a crap sandwich.
Adam got his new talking points from the DNC. This week he is supposed to blame the GOP and Conservatives for class warfare. He gets to parrot the lines until they send the next script. You can see the themes in his weekly posts.
How do you enslave someone by making him work for his keep? How is it enslaving those oon welfare when you require them to earn the money? Are they not actually enslaved by those who give them something for nothing? Of course which is why the liberals like to give money to the less fortunate to keep them down. They are enslaved by those who continue to feed them and will keep voting for their masters.
It is also enslaving those who pay taxes because they are forced to pay for the welfare of others.
Yes Adam, if you get money from the taxpayer you should have to work for it.
There is no class warfare here. Only reality and we can see what welfare has done to society, to classes of people, and to the taxpayers 9as well as the federal budget). We can see how it is destroying our society and enslaving (since you like that word) the unborn to a ball and chain of debt.
And yes, some folks getting welfare work but how many are not? How many scam the system? How many can actually work a job. I have seen too many in the ER who are on some kind of assistance and don’t work but could.
“And yes, some folks getting welfare work but how many are not? How many scam the system? How many can actually work a job.”
You or Schatzee tell me. You’re the one’s so certain that they are not earning your hard earned pennies that you’d like to decide how they live their lives simply because of it. I mean, I’ve given out more loose change out on the street to homeless people than you pay the average person on welfare. Do I get to say what that homeless person does for the next few hours because of that?
I mean, I earned that change. At least I think I did. Wait, I got a pell grant in college. Does that mean I didn’t earn that change? Oh gosh. Where do you want me to work? I’ll grab a mop or a broom and get to it.
Here is where you are having trouble. It is not surprising because you are a lib so let me help you.
When you give the money directly it is charity and you decided what was done with your money.
When government takes money from a person under threat (jail or penalties for not giving it up) and then government decides who gets that money then we, as taxpayers who allow government to work for us get to sdecide. If government deems a group of people can get the money it TOOK from me then I get a say in the matter.
If you give your money away you already had a say in the matter.
Hard earned pennies? I can assure you that I pay a hell of a lot more than pennies in taxes.
Amen.
“Hard earned pennies? I can assure you that I pay a hell of a lot more than pennies in taxes.”
Of course. But you don’t pay more than fractions of pennies to any one person collecting welfare in any of the various government programs. You get no say over what they do and no right to judge them.
We, the people who pay for their sustenance, do get to have a say in what they do and we can judge them too- we have that right- we paid for it.
Yes, Adam, when I am paying their way I think I should have a say in how they live their lives. I think they should have to pass a drug test, work for those pennies just like I did, and realize that this is a GIFT, a privilege, not a right or an obligation. They can choose not to accept my money and to get their own and then they can do with it what they please. But when I (or we) are footing the bill, then they should have to answer to me. Kind of like when you live with your parents they tell you the rules and you live under them or get out.
As for what you choose to do with your earned money, be it share with the homeless or bet on the ponies, I don’t care. And no you should not tell them how to live because you chose to give to them and it was yours to give. I don’t choose to support welfare. I have no choice. The government enslaves ME by demanding that I give my money, earned by me with my finite time here on this earth (something I consider a cherished personal possession) to someone that I have not chosen to share my bounty with. That’s slavery – welfare is charity. How can you not tell the difference? Your argument is lame – and I see where BD gets the idea that you simply parrot what the left has decided is the argument of the day.
“…and I see where BD gets the idea that you simply parrot what the left has decided is the argument of the day.”
If there is one single person on this site writing original ideas or thoughts that they have not gathered from reading other websites, authors, or listening to politicians and pundits speak, then by all means let me know. Big Dog says things like this simply as a way to deflect from the ideas he’s being challenged on.
“I have no choice. The government enslaves ME by demanding that I give my money…”
So all taxes are slavery or just the spending you disagree with? It all evens out, doesn’t it? You don’t get to choose not to fund welfare and I don’t get to choose not to fund asinine adventures like the Iraq war.
Funny though, when you look in the Constitution there is a part about military and waging war. Congress gave the authority and the president acted upon it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about taxing us to pay out welfare. You see Adam, there are items we oppose that are in our Constitution but we follow it because that is what it is there for. To do things that are not there will lead us to a path of ruin.
Perhaps this will shed some light on the differences.
I see we have different economic challenges but the reason they have caused problems is because we have failed to address them in accordance with our Constitution. As we changed from agrarian we also changed he way we did things. We now have the Fed, a danger and something our Founders opposed. We have a welfare society designed by progressives to make people dependent on government and to garner votes. Yes, the challenges are different but the reason we have trouble is the way we handled them. If we had addressed them as we had all other situations and IAW our Constitution we would not be in the mess we are. No doubt, paying our debt would have been the first priority. Running up 15 TRILLION dollars in debt causes a lot of problems and debt was something our Founders did not believe we should carry.
So no, I have no problem with history. I can see the changes but I also see the changes in how we handled things that have caused the problems we are in.
Oh, and as for your pell grant, you can start by cleaning up after your brethren in the park.
But again, this whole idea that people earning welfare should have to work for it implies they are not working. Somebody find me a list of the various programs we fund and tell me how many of those people collecting those are low income or no income?
Everyone’s pennies (cents is the more technical term) add up and those who pay have as much right to say how the money is spent as those who receive it have a right to demand more.
If you want a say on how it’s spent you vote for people who share your view. What you’re doing is uselessly screaming into the ether about how these unnamed, generic people are taking your money without earning it. This story thrives on anecdotes about bad people getting handouts that they don’t need while enjoying things they don’t deserve like cars and cell phones. You can’t put a real face on it because then you’d see how silly it is. Or maybe you just like calling for the elderly, single mothers, or children to “earn” those fractions of pennies they get from you by doing your bidding because you think they’re all a bunch of free-loading leeches mooching off the system.
Oh yes, just like screaming about the lies of police or firefighters or teachers losing jobs to trump up tax increases you throw out the talking points of elderly, single mothers or children.
The elderly were supposed to be taken care of with Social Security and Medicare. Two government programs that have failed because government misappropriated the money and spent it on other things. Instead of allowing people to invest or save their own money or putting it into accounts in their names the government spent the money. A failed government program that cannot be sustained. Medicare, same thing. How do they try to make up for shortfalls? They pay the doctors less, it is the safety valve they use. Another useless government program that government ruined.
Children, Medicaid was for them. Now that is bust because government can’t run anything efficiently.
As for single mothers, I did not knock up those mothers so why am I paying for their kids? How about they chase the father down and make him pay. When we started paying unwed mothers money we got more unwed mothers.
There is no reason that we should pay for their internet or cell phones (which the poor get). Since when did these items become a necessity to live. I know a lot of people without one or the other and they do just fine.
What we have is Adam using the sob stories set out by the libs to make us feel bad. Means test a rich guy to see if he deserves the SS he paid for all his life and that is fine but means test a poor person to see if they should be getting welfare or making them do something to earn it and we are bad people.
Sorry, I have not been able to locate the portion of the Constitution that allows this redistribution of wealth.
“As for single mothers, I did not knock up those mothers so why am I paying for their kids?”
Because we’ve decided that when we keep mothers and children from starving to death or turning to crime our entire society benefits? This is like how we decided helping children afford college was better as well because educated people are less of a burden on our society.
“There is no reason that we should pay for their internet or cell phones…”
Who cares what you pay for? If we spent less time and effort worrying about what these dollars were spent on we’d have more money to spend on people needing help. Instead we get people with your attitude that get mad when they see somebody buying fancy food at the store with SNAP or WIC or talking on a cell phone at the SS office. Who cares? There’s going to be abuse. Why do you pretend the abuse is the standard? Class warfare. Your money is your money and you’re going to make up excuses for why you should keep more of it. Class warfare.
“When we started paying unwed mothers money we got more unwed mothers.”
Based on?
“Sorry, I have not been able to locate the portion of the Constitution that allows this redistribution of wealth.”
That’s fine. The SCOTUS has. Don’t trouble yourself.
Yes, the SCOTUS, the most corrupt and worrysome branch of government is where they reside. And I do not recall them deciding on these issues.
We as a society have not decided that women and children not dying is a good thing because that has never been the debate. besides, the liberals have NEVER decided that a child dying was a problem as seen in their support for the murder of children called abortion.
We see that when we pay women to have children out of wedlock, more women have children out of wedlock based on you get more of what you subsidize. Look ta the history and see how many more have entered the welfare rolls and how many more unwed mothers there are since they started paying them. The thing is, you feel these people are entitled to these things. THEY feel they are entitled. They are not entitled (and that was a SCOTUS ruling with regard to SS).
People should care when the folks on SNAP or WIC are buying better food than they can afford. It is a crime when you pay for someone to have better things than you do.
We did not decide that everyone having a college education is less of a burden on society. That is a myth. Well educated people are less of a burden but that education does not have to be college. Honors students in high school (real honors, not the pass them to get them through crowd) and people who do well in trade schools are less of a burden on society. The student loan program does nothing but inflate the cost of a college education.
Not everyone needs to go to college and not everyone should. We are not the same. Some people are not bright enough to go and waste time and money.
As for your suggestion that people with collge educations are less of a burden, I think the occupy movement showed that to be incorrect. There are a lot of people there with signs screaming about how much college debt they have. They are NOT productive members of society. They are a burden. They are costing cities millions in overtime for police and trash collectors. They are trashing things and vandalising. They are a burden.
Show me where the SCOTUS has said that It is my duty to pay for someone else. Show me where they ruled on wealth redistribution.
I am a charitable person and give quite a bit. I have concentrated my donations to charities that do not support liberals. I used to get lots of calls and when I tell them to take me off their list because they supported Obama or some other liberal they just can’t understand it. I don’t care if those charities are able to help Obama supporters. Most of them are getting my money by force.
Screw them.
And one more thing. How many unwed mothers and their babies died before we started paying them? How did we survive before government became the big nanny?
Do you think the SCOTUS saying it makes it gospel? The SCOTUS once said blacks were not afforded the same rights as whites. Which is correct, the Constitution or the SCOTUS.
The Constitution never made them slaves and you won’t find that word in it. It never discriminated against them and the SCOTUS did…
“…as seen in their support for the murder of children called abortion.”
Which confirms the old line: For Republicans life begins at conception and ends at birth.
“Look at the history and see how many more have entered the welfare rolls and how many more unwed mothers there are since they started paying them.”
I was kind of looking for facts, not a logical fallacy. Have any?
“It is a crime when you pay for someone to have better things than you do.”
You’ve never had to live off food stamps, have you?
“Some people are not bright enough to go and waste time and money.”
I’m not saying everyone should go. But certainly you would not suggest everyone who should go does go. They don’t. A requirement for school should not be whether or not you can afford it outright. You’d be dooming generations of children to low education and low income jobs. I’m a first generation college student who used grants and loans to be able to afford a state school but had to work to still eat. Now I pay more in federal taxes each year than I got total in pell grants. I’d say that was a pretty good investment of your pennies and I appreciate your support.
“Which is correct, the Constitution or the SCOTUS.”
What you mean is which is correct: Your interpretation of the constitution which is an opinion or the interpretation that is the law of this land? I’m not saying the court is always right but we’ve been over this before where you apparently scan the document looking for the words “welfare” and “queen” and don’t see it and declare the whole mess an affront to the American Dream.
“How did we survive before government became the big nanny?”
That question shows lack of understanding of history. Our transition from a rural, agrarian based nation to a much more urban, industrial nation is one reason why we’ve had to tackle challenges that haven’t always been a problem or wasn’t an issue at the founding of our country.
That is a nice sound bite but the reality is a child in the womb is innocent. Those sentenced to death for committing a crime are being punished for something they did. Show me what crimes the child in the womb has committed. The more accurate sound bite would be for liberals the innocent should be murdered but those guilty of a capital crime should be protected. Seems rather backwards. Your little ditty only makes you look like a fool who cannot tell the difference between the innocent and the guilty. It also shows you protect the murder of the unborn.
There is plenty of data. Notice the increase as more was paid to unwed mothers (and after the time when family or churches generally took care of it) and then the decrease after 1996 when welfare reform was enacted.
It is noit a matter of my interpretation of the Constitution. The writings of the Founders is clear. The writings of past Congresses is clear.
I do not lack understanding of history, you do. The transition was well underway in the early teens of the last century. The nanny state started under liberals (progressives) and was ratcheted up under FDR. It has been growing into a bigger nanny state since then. These liberal policies have failed to help but succeeded in what progressives wanted, dependence on government.
“It also shows you protect the murder of the unborn.”
Sorry. My statement is neither for or against abortion. Nice try though.
“Notice the increase as more was paid to unwed mothers…”
You’ll have to cite me the part that says welfare for unwed mothers increased the number of unwed mothers.
“I do not lack understanding of history, you do.”
Really? Because I thought it was fairly obvious why we face economic challenges now that we didn’t when we were still a tiny, agrarian nation. You seem to be confused by that.
Adam, just as the Bible can give you most answers to your problems, so too can the Constitution, if you can read it clearly enough, and do not try to twist the words of the Constitution to fit your ideas. That is as bad as Climate “scientists” who go forth seeking grants , while bellowing in a loud voice that it is all Man’s fault- all they want, like every other ignorant person, is their bread and circuses- and they really do not care whether man is at fault or not, as long as they get their money.
Man may have altered some of the climatology, but it remains to be seen as to how much. Personally, I believe they have been looking in the wrong places-
Adam, the truth, which you refuse to admit, is that life begins at fertilization- period. After the egg is fertilized, he/ she will not grow into a platypus, elephant, or fern. That’s a fact, and since its future form is decided at fertilization, it is human, and nothing else. You can argue til you are as blue as your
Dodger cap, but the fact is inescapable- the fertilized egg is a human, so abortion is murder at its most basic form.