Everyone knows it was a mistake to pay some people to have children, especially drug addicts, but this was not a progressive mindset, and other industrial countries don’t commonly do it (but we have Puritan roots). Welfare was instituted partly to help families survive the death of husband in industrial accidents and wars and made many moral assumptions, including the role of women in the home. Also, it was seen as a way to alleviate the need for abortion. Mistake: it was commonly assumed that women would not have kids our of wedlock (a conservative mentality that could have been avoided by design), so the system allowed abuse by faulty implementation that was determined by conservatism. Who knows, maybe it was a planned failure. Many cynical economic models involve overpopulation as a way to cheapen labor (feudalism).
The solution is not either/or, but intelligently designed benefits to those who need them which can’t be abused–such as healthcare, free education, social security, etc. Now tell us how one abuses preventive healthcare and a free college education? By the way, your example of welfare is spurious and does absolutely nothing to debunk welfare. It is not even a set of statistics or a line of reasoning, but a conclusion that contains the premise of how you think things should be (“Welfare is bad because people don’t work for it”–begging the question). You can’t even prove that not having welfare would launch people out of the ghetto or poverty (but they are healthier and happier and their spending helps smooth out dangerous production shortages in housing, agriculture and appliances). Ever hear of racism? Ever hear of Keynes and redistribution of wealth to prime a demand economy? Your argument is moral and nostalgic and not logical. Try again.
I sense, and assume, that you have bought into the sheepish Christian idea that having money comes from God. So, if one is poor, that is their fault (blame the victim). If one is rich, then they are to be admired regardless. I would dare say that without government funded programs we would be a backward weak country, because there would be no other capital available for long-term common goals. Try debunking that.
Note: Sheep are sheep, Christian or otherwise. The point is that they are blindly following something/anything. You can’t use the specific metaphor and then qualify it for your advantage, otherwise it is meaningless. Think about it.
I’m familiar with Stephens Guide, thanks. I thought you were trying to dispute something I said by making a vague reference to my need for counselling or medication. That was you only response to what I said. You should read some of Brian Bunnyhurt posts he does address what I’m saying and hasn’t questioned my mental state. Well not yet at least.
I should not have said Liberals, I should have used the term Liberalism (as practiced today) throughout. All people who go along with such a system are not bad people. There are differing reasons why it appeals to so many people. The main focus is on the Social Engineers who think government should be in the business of changing individual behavior.
If you think welfare did not cause the problems I outlined then say so and tell me why. If you think what happend to those families had other causitive factors then say so and tell me what you think cause them. If you don’t think there was a Liberal backlash when welfare reform was proposed then say so and show me how they were eager fix it. Oops my slip-shod use of history and facts did’nt demonstrate that there was any problems to fix.
Showing how welfare was destroying the family and stating by destroying the family you destroy society must have really gotten to you. If its true now that would be demonic. You reject it completely. I welcome any meningfull corrections that anyone has to offer, as I have said I may be wrong, and I’m not afraid of being eaten alive.
In response to those two posters let me quote from a song Jimmy Hendrix sang entitled All Along The Watchtower: “There are many here among us
who feel that life is but a joke”
Huh? How could Hitler have gained absolute control of the media before he even came to power?
We would do well to remember that Hitler won control of Germany without the support of the majority. If election results are any indication, only about a third of the German people supported the Nazis before they gained control of the government.