More Liberal Hypocrisy

An interesting comment I found on the response to another blogger:

It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live.

That is an excelent summation of the mindset of many of the left in America. And it is horrendously untrue. Add to that that it shows the hypocrisy of the left, yet again, in light of one of our more current controversies.

The argument from the left in the Terri Schiavo case centered heavily on Ms. Schiavo's inability to feed herself or provide her own self care. Because Ms. Schiavo was unable to do so, liberal pundits decreed, all sustenance must be withheld from her.

When that logic is applied to the situation of the poor in this country (expecting them to provide for themselves), the left quickly switches sides. The government, they demand, should create jobs even for the people unwilling to work for them, the government should provide housing for those unwilling to find their own.

The problem is, the government HAS no such liability. To add to that, neither do we have a MORAL responsibility to provide for people who are COMPLETELY unwilling to provide for themselves. Should food banks be required to deliver food, since some people don't want to get off their asses and go to the food banks? Should people be given a nominal job when all they're going to do is sit at a table staring at the wall?

I could take this argument further and argue that it's simply a matter of survival of the fittest, but that would assume that all leftists are Darwinists; experience has told me this is far from the case (although it's a compelling argument for those who ARE). I could further state that the "Protestant work ethic" does revolve around a standard of doing SOMETHING to provide for yourself, but that would equally assume that all leftists are Protestant Christians; again, experience refutes me on this, although again, the argument is equally compelling.

I WILL, however, state that individual responsibility is essential for individual freedoms. If we wish to have a socialist society where every need is provided by the government, we cannot have liberty. And if we are to have liberty, we must have individual responsibility. Benjamin Franklin said it well in an almost overquoted statement that "he who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves and receives neither" (a paraphrase). Insisting that the government provide homes and jobs is a sacrifice of liberty for security. Sadly, for most of the American left, it is demanding the sacrifice come from OTHERS without sacrificing your own comforts.

We must eradicate the mindset that we are responsible for providing a living for others. Until we return to a nation of individual accountability and responsibility, we will all continue to suffer, and we will be weaker for it.

5,797 views 56 replies
Reply #1 Top
Good luck on having the liberals have a single stance on anything.
Reply #2 Top
I wonder. If the government conceded to these ideas and said "yes, we will provide homes and jobs for all who need them, and we will heavily tax those who believe we should do this in order to pay for it" how many of these vocal people would switch sides to protect their own assets and lifestyle?

It's easy to say "this should be done" and "that should be done" until the time comes to pay for it to be done. As long as it's other people's money, that's ok.
Reply #3 Top
Mason,

You get an insightful. I wonder how many working class Americans would sacrifice a majority of their wages for a government provided apartment, car, and all the food and clothing they need (in theory anyway).

Here's a hint, though: it was tried, and failed in the USSR. Let's not repeat that experiment, as human lives and liberties are the casualty.
Reply #4 Top
So if i understand this correctly, you are saying that we shouldn't be obligated to better the world around us and help our fellow man? I am all for reducing the welfare rolls as much as the next guy, But if we offer no assistance to those who desperately need it we are no better than a third world country.

This is why i'm a dem guys. We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man. If we do not, we are all screwed.

The trick i guess it to find a way to insure the system isnt abused. We have been wrestling with that little nugget for 60 years now.
Reply #5 Top
"It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live......
That is an excelent summation of the mindset of many of the left in America. And it is horrendously untrue"
You''re arguing that it's not the duty of a responsible governement to do all it can to provide the necessary conditions for it's people to live as well and as comfortable as they can? The same government that claims to be acting for equality and justice all over the world? It's not untrue. It's their job to ensure their people live well.
Reply #6 Top

We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man. If we do not, we are all screwed.

I have been over this many times. We have a MORAL obligation, yes...NOT a legal one.

Moral obligations are the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL, not the government.

Back to the main article, thatoneguy....why was it not the government's responsibility to continue to feed Ms. Schiavo?

Reply #7 Top

This is why i'm a dem guys. We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man. If we do not, we are all screwed.

If we have an oblilgation, then let us fulfill it.  But the democrats do not allow you to fulfill your obligation.  Forced compliance, via confiscatory taxation, is not fulfilling an obligation.  it is Socialism, and removes the issue of responsibility from all individuals.

 

Reply #8 Top
we shouldn't be obligated to better the world around us and help our fellow man?

As individuals making that choice, absolutely. That is on the conscience of the individual. To force others to do so because we feel it's the right thing to do? Absolutely not.

It isn't the role of the government to provide homes and jobs for everyone and force everyone to fund that through taxation.

Every individual is free to contribute to charity either financially or by giving of their time if it's their inclination to do so. I have done so myself when I had the resources.

It's their job to ensure their people live well.


No it isn't. It's not the "job" of the government to hand-hold it's citizens and make sure they have a job and a home. It's the role of the government to defend it's citizens from foreign aggression, attend to diplomatic relations with other states, and provide legislation in order to defend it citizens domestically, as well as act in economic matters in the best interest of it's citizens.

Only in a Socialist nation is it the responsibility of the government to provide all things for it's citizens. Last time I checked, the United States hadn't adopted a Socialist economy or political structure. I also haven't seen any examples of a large scale Socialist society that actually worked in accomplishing these things effectively.

Yes, as human beings we each, individually, have a responsibility to our fellow man and should act accordingly, but the government's responsibilities lie elsewhere.
Reply #9 Top
Only in a Socialist nation is it the responsibility of the government to provide all things for it's citizens.


Nail on the head award, Mason.
Reply #10 Top
Well then Gid, is our whole basis of this country a lie then? Remember tired, poor huddled masses?

I'm not saying that it should be a law that we pay everybodies rent and fill their pockets. Ive been to socialized countries where that is the standard, and i don't like it. The thought of giving 60% of my income to support others doesn't sit well with me. But if we allow the far right to dictate terms that disallows any government assistance, we create a western black hole of Calcutta.

Let's face it. The right only cares about putting money back in their pockets. This is one of the basic philosophies of the GOP. Smaller Federal government is another (although you wouldnt know it nowadays). I support these two beliefs to a certain extent. But i think as the richest country in the hemisphere, If we do not take care of those who actually need the help, our whle system comes off as hypocritical. As far as Moral obligation goes, yes we do have a moral obligation to take care of the less fortunate. The problem is that GREED gets in the way. We are so obsessed with getting rich as a whole that the cash goes back into the pocket, and into a new car, house, PC, Remote control vacuum cleaners that feed our materalistic society. If we do not set aside a portion of tax revenue and manage it correctly, we create the black hole.

Our culture is more rapidly becoming about ME. Mine mine mine. As long as this is the standard, we will continue to feed the downward spiral of poverty, and despair. We have to do something about it besides trying to pawn off the responsibility via "Faith based inititaves". The problem is too widespread for that. There is only one entity that can handle it. And that my friends is the US Government. We desperately need welfare reform that goes beyond the changes made in the past few years to insure those who need assistance actually get it. I just don't see the current administration caring enough to do anything about it. They seem too caught up in making sure corporate America gets their payback for putting them behind the wheel. They are actually contributing to the problen via allowing outsourcing, roadblocking liveable wage legislation, and welfare reform.

As fare as Terri goes. She put herself in that bed. And i'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that it is a welfare issue. I guess in a sense it is, but the majority of people that need help do NOT choose to live a reckless lifestyle and put themselves in the position she got herself in. (this really is another thread altogether)

And Guy? I would rather see my tax dollars go to feed a starving child on our side of the ocean rather than to kill a child somewhere else.
Reply #11 Top
It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live.


Could you link to the article that the response was in, please?

I have a feeling that what was meant by the statement was that it is a governments responsibility to provide jobs for people (that is, make sure there is a job market that people can go out and find work in).
Reply #12 Top

Remember tired, poor huddled masses?

Yes, and they're all free to immigrate to this country to WORK for a better life.

As fare as Terri goes. She put herself in that bed. And i'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that it is a welfare issue. I guess in a sense it is, but the majority of people that need help do NOT choose to live a reckless lifestyle and put themselves in the position she got herself in. (this really is another thread altogether)

And the majority of Americans are impoverished because of choices they MADE. The reason Terri Schiavo came into this is because of YOUR OWN rationalization for why starving her to death was ethical; the fact that she was unable to feed herself. It IS a hypocrisy, the concept of survival of the fittest demands that some will NOT survive; and in fact, to offer false hope to those who will not survive is more cruel than letting them starve to death in the first place. But I digress...

Let's face it. The right only cares about putting money back in their pockets. This is one of the basic philosophies of the GOP. Smaller Federal government is another (although you wouldnt know it nowadays

There's a difference between "putting money back in your pockets" and "keeping money you have EARNED". And the GOP in fact NEVER was about smaller government (in fact, it was FOUNDED on the principle of destroying smaller government), that has just been a good catchphrase. The Libertarians are the only true standardbearers of smaller government.

Well, if you want to legislate morality, thatoneguy, be prepared to legislate ALL of it. The standards of the majority of Americans on abortion, sexuality, and other personal beliefs systems are just as enforceable if you insist on enforcing moral standards of compassion. It is NOT the government's responsibility to legislate morality, nor can it effectively do so. We DO have a MORAL responsibility to these causes, and that is a platform I have never abandoned. But the federalization of these programs does NOT help aid recipients (as I am all too painfully aware), and private charities can distribute money FAR more efficiently.

I respect your opinions as always, thatoneguy, but I wish you would see the dangers of socialism on a massive scale. Otherwise, the Cold War was for NOTHING.

 

Reply #13 Top

Let's face it. The right only cares about putting money back in their pockets.

When you say that you seriously mis understand the right.  For it is conservatives who voluntarily give more of their income to charities that do not have the overhead of the feds, to do what you advocate. But we want to give that money ourselves, not be forced to give to a government program.

And unless you are talking about pedophiles, your money does not go to kill children abroad.  But I will be sure to tell the next GI I see you said that.

Reply #14 Top

As fare as Terri goes. She put herself in that bed. And i'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that it is a welfare issue. I guess in a sense it is, but the majority of people that need help do NOT choose to live a reckless lifestyle and put themselves in the position she got herself in. (this really is another thread altogether)

And that is wrong.  You should research more before writing innuendos and lies.

Reply #15 Top
I'm sorry Gid, I just don't buy your arguement here...I also take issue with your classification of the GOP. go to their site and read their basic tenets. They ARE for smaller federal government and more state control.

As far as your point of KEEPING vs Putting it back in your pockets. That's 6 of one, half a dozen of another.

I believe that the vast majority of those needing assistance do not want to be in the position to ask for it. I think they would rather work for it like the rest of us. I do not believe they wake up one day and say "hey, i'm gonna screw my life up to the point that i need to get some of that sweet federal cake!" I think they are put into that position for any number of reasons. Maily economically based. Maybe somebody was incapacitated to the point where they cannot work. do we let them sit on the curb and beg for it?

HELL NO!

I have little or no faith in religion taking on the awesome responsability of morer assistance wothout furthering their own agendas in the precess. Also, there is a world of difference between offering someone temporary assitance and the cold war.
Reply #16 Top
How so Guy? She was a bulemic who had the blood cut off from her brain because of binging and purging.
Reply #17 Top
by the way, thatoneguy...the line about "tired, poor, huddled masses" was not in the Constitution, but a line froma POEM by Emma Lazarus.

Just thought you might like to know that.
Reply #18 Top
I also take issue with your classification of the GOP. go to their site and read their basic tenets. They ARE for smaller federal government and more state control.


They only give LIP SERVICE...Who do you think passed "No Child Left Behind"? PLEASE tell me how that's "smaller government". Just because they SAY they're for smaller government doesn't mean it's true, especially when their actions CONSISTENTLY refute it (US Patriot Act....want me to go on?)

I believe that the vast majority of those needing assistance do not want to be in the position to ask for it. I think they would rather work for it like the rest of us. I do not believe they wake up one day and say "hey, i'm gonna screw my life up to the point that i need to get some of that sweet federal cake!"


And what statistics do you base this belief on? I am basing my conclusion that most poor are willingly caught in a cycle of dependence on 35 years of experience...While I have always worked for a better living I have seen much of it leached away by those around me who will not (and before you start blaming me, I don't think I bear responsibility for those who will steal my stuff simply because I couldn't afford an ALARM SYSTEM).

The poor prey on the poor in this country, thatoneguy...that is not speculation, that is FACT. And they show up for every handout they can get. I still contend that someone smart enough to figure out how to fence food stamps to buy meth is smart enough to figure out how to make an HONEST living.
Reply #19 Top

How so Guy? She was a bulemic who had the blood cut off from her brain because of binging and purging.

They checked and found out she was not bulemic (blood chemistry test).  If you had been following the case, then you would have known that theory was disproved long ago.

Reply #20 Top
Interestingly enough, why do libs insist that what happened to Terri Schiavo was her own fault while they led the charge in suing tobacco companies? (hints: there are WARNINGS on the side of cigarette packs?)

Thanks for tangentially helping to prove my point!
Reply #21 Top
Guy, they havent released the autopsy report yet. If you had followed the case a little closer, you would know that!

Gid, i dunno about the tobacco issue. Like i said many times, i'm no liberal. I may be a dem but that doesn't mean i agree with everything they do. I only know that i think we need to take care of some of the less fortunate who truly deserve the help. Not subsidize the lifestyles of those who choose not to work. I also agree with you on the lip service thingie. When i made that comment it was meant to be a little sarcastic. I personally think NCLB is a crock in general with a few good intentions behind it.

I also agree with you on the poor feeding on the poor. I've seen that first hand many times. But, there has got to be a way to tighten it up to drastically reduce it from happening. The GOP? They just want to turn the tap back into their own pockets.

I would never blame you for being victimized. That's like saying its a rape victims fault for being raped. It's nonsensical and unfair to the victims. What i do know is if we had a better way to enforce the existing laws and punish those in an effective manner we might just be able to do some good for the less fortunate. Things like job training, Meds for the homeless, Nutritious meals for low income children instead of the dreck they give them now. Common sense assistance with a ultimate goal of self sufficiency. Not some grand socialist scheme to equal everybody out. This is America after all, and we all have the right to make the best living we can and keep the largest percentage for ourselves and our loved ones. We could finance it by AUDITING the federal government and cutting out the pork. I was watching the news yesterday (FOX news for the record Guy) saw a report about how 100 MILLION dollars of reconstruction money has vanished. This is the kind of pork i am talking about.

Life will never be completely even for all in America on the financial side of it. And only a fool would think that Converting our economy over to some grand social experiment is the right path for us to choose. All we havr to do is look north to see a good example of what can go wrong with wholesale socialization. All i'm saying is that we can pull this off if someone actually can get everybody on the same page. I just don't see anyone from the GOP, or your party doing it with only the religious community doing the work.

It just can't be done. Only the federal government can pull it off.
Reply #22 Top
Only the federal government can pull it off.


100 MILLION dollars of reconstruction money has vanished.
Reply #23 Top
"We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man."


Wasn't that why Hitler annexed Poland? "Better" is pretty damned relative. I have no doubt in my mind that I would differ with what 90% of the people here consider "better". I know for a fact that the standards of my community concerning housing and lifestyle are in no way "better" to me, and I flee them whenever possible...

I think you have the obligation to butt the hell out and not impose yourself on your fellow man. You also have the right to help them when they ask, IF you so choose.


" Only the federal government can pull it off."


Given our almost total lack of success so far, I think you have a lot of faith in a failure. We haven't improved much of anyone, we've just made them serfs to the federal government; basically keeping them in the poverty-ridden state they were in to begin with.
Reply #24 Top
I guess its the side of me that wants to think we can make our country a better place Baker. I do agree with you to a certain extent about butting out. But if we all butt out where does that leave us when it comes to the desperatley needy? I'll tell you, in a world of shit is where! (sorry for the profanity Gid) When we deny the next generation of what they need (IE: food, and a fair shot at bettering themselves) we erode our own infrastructure. We raise yet another generation of folks who rely on the system to get them through life without putting any effort into bettering themselves.

FYI baker...Hitler was a rightie. National Socalism was just a name. It was the furthest right of right wing euopean politics at the time.
Reply #25 Top
Guy, they havent released the autopsy report yet. If you had followed the case a little closer, you would know that!


Now would be too late to test for bulemia! She was tested shortly after being admitted, and the results were inconclusive. Since there was no friends or family that ever witnessed the episodes, that cast the allegations of bulemia into the most negative light. And left them at best innuendo, and at worst an out right lie.

See, I have been followig the case very closely!

Glad to see you are your old spunky self again!