The Democratic party has for years been able to convince the public that they are the party of compassion; the party that cares about the poor and middle class. It is so ironic because the policies they advocate actually hurt the poor and middle class the most.
It is this irony that I find most infuriating. Opponents of government welfare get accused of not caring about the poor because they don’t agree with the solutions offered. But is the liberal solution to poverty, working? This question, they tend not to ask themselves.
The Cato Institute released a policy analysis that showed that for all of the money the government has spent on welfare programs, we haven’t gotten much in return. The poverty rate is about where it was back in 1964 when the “War on Poverty” began.
The U.S. currently spends $1 trillion every year to “fight” poverty, which amounts to over $20,000 for every poor person in America, or over $61,000 per poor family of three. And all we have to show for it are people who are still poor, and have become accustomed to being taken care of. How compassionate.
Liberals get to feel good about themselves for supporting these types of policies, whether they work or not, and this is what I don’t get. How can you claim to be compassionate when you refuse to follow up with your approach to see if it works? Is it not the ultimate goal to help, or is it merely to create the illusion of help? Are these policies really meant to help the poor or are they just a way to make their proponents feel good about themselves? Is it just their way of fooling themselves into thinking that they are compassionate people?
It is selfish, dishonest, cowardly, and lazy, to think that all you have to do to be compassionate is to support government handouts, and then close your eyes, cover your ears, and refuse to see whether or not you have made a difference.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” – Benjamin Franklin
Franklin’s idea seems a lot more compassionate to me as it focuses on results. Anything that doesn’t isn’t compassion. It is mere stupidity, selfishness and ignorance of the laws of economics and human nature.
Welfare spending has increased by 32% under Obama. This is the opposite of compassion. It’s enslavement. It’s the perpetuation of government dependency and it will not end well, especially for those dependent.
A big part of Obama’s strategy during his campaign was to turn the poor and middle class against the rich. What many refuse to realize is that the rich will still be rich regardless of Obama’s policies. It is the poor that are most affected by the destruction of jobs that results from these liberal policies. It is the poor that are most affected during a bad economy. It is the poor that will be most affected when the government can no longer continue handing out money it doesn’t have.
- Proof That We Will Never Get Rid of Poverty
- Be Thankful for Income Inequality
- The Reasons Why Most of Hollywood is Liberal
- Minimum Wage Laws Hurt the Poor by Preventing Employment
- Enough Demagoguery!