In response to:

15 Lies of Liberalism

ajhil Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 8:42 AM
Item 10 - one of the stupidest & most easily debunked. Liberals don't espouse equality of outcome, but they do reject the kind of "I'm all right, Jack. Screw everybody else!" attitude that characterizes laissez faire conservatism. A minimal standard of living is not just moral. It makes good sense from a practical point of view. People who are beset by uncertainty & want cannot contribute effto their own betterment. A clear illustration of this can be found in public schools, where food deprived children from the poorest households cannot learn effectively & fail to benefit from their educational opportunities. Providing such children - or all children - with a nutritious meal at public expense is money well spent.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 9:26 AM
Yes, like all liberal nonsense, it is easily debunked. That Hawkins' point is debunked is so contrary to reality only a blithering idiot would so claim. In fact, the alternative to the liberal concept of economics is called capitalism and it has done more, particularly for the poor and working classes than any other economic order conceived by the mind of Man. The simple fact is that government intervention has always UNDERMINED providing a "minimal standard of living" for the greatest number of people.

And, yes, a clear example of failed liberal policies is public education which has always underperformed private education even for at risk students.
comsense08 Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 9:12 AM
You dope, put responsibility where it belongs. on the parents!!! If kids are starving wouldn't it be criminal to allow those kids to stay in a home that does this to them? This goes back to liberalism again. Only way parents get lift themselves up enough to earn more is to have more upward mobility, and that by more jobs and that by an unbridled economy. But not liberals, they won't allow that, and thus the poor, underfed child. Just the point the first paragraph makes!!! God, can't you people understand ANYTHING?
tmbalin Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 9:12 AM
But when you go to a store to buy food for your family and you are using your own money and the person in front of you uses food stamps and then proceeds to get into a new $50,000 vehicle thats okay right? If we base "welfare" on a family of 3 maybe people will stop having kids so they can get more "free" stuff. Don't tell me that this doesn't happen because I have seen this more than a dozen times. I don't make more than 70,000 a year but refuse to "cheat" taxpayers (not the government) out of money that we don't have. Why do these people continue to have kids when they could not afford the first one. I believe it is because they see dollar signs so they just keep having more and more so they get more and more "free" stuff.
poorgrandchildren.com2 Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 9:05 AM
The question is whether government or someone else should help. Using government force to require A to pay B's bills forces A into slavery to B. On the other hand, freedom gives individuals motivation to reduce poverty by creating wealth while family members, insurance companies, and voluntary charities provide safety nets without creating a slave class, a parasite class, a criminal political class, rampant poverty, and massive public debt.
Henry VIII Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 9:04 AM
And, it;s libtards like you who impede that school child's parent from being able to provide that nutritious meal without government assistance. You keep them permanently on the welfare plantation, and subsidize those morons with 30 children and 11 baby mamas....
Scrap Iron in Texas Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 9:01 AM
But why do you demand GOVERNMENT be held responsible for their welfare?
They are a poor charity, full of cost over-runs and corruption.
These things are best left to private charity.

Liberalism offers up a utopian vision of the world and then invites its practitioners to feel good about themselves for embracing it. Not only does this beautiful fantasy world never come to pass, liberalism fails to address the root causes of the problems it sets out to solve while creating whole new disasters in the process. In other words, it's a never ending circle. There's a problem, liberalism is offered up as the solution, it doesn't work and creates more problems, for which liberalism is offered up as the solution, etc., etc., etc. until you're starving, bankrupt, or your society...