Thursday, September 02, 2010


How liberals and conservatives deal with welfare probably illustrates the most obvious differences between the two. I think even the most hardened conservative would agree that in a country with the wealth and abundance that America has there is no need to let anyone starve. It is how we give the necessary aid to the needy where the differences show up.

Liberals claim that it is humiliating and demeaning to make a person work for the welfare that he receives.

Conservatives believe that the opposite is true, if a person performs some sort of service for the help he receives then he maintains his dignity by knowing that he has actually earned his assistance by rendering a service.

A half century of "The Great Society" enacted by Lyndon B Johnson" has demonstrated that hand outs to the poor will not eliminate poverty as was promised but actually encourages people to go on welfare. After all, why would anyone want to go to a 9 to 5 job when he can sit at home and watch his fancy flat panel big screen TV instead?

From the 1950s when Lydon B Johnson enacted welfare it has grown from $38 billion to $551 billion per year in 2000. That is after accounting for inflation. You would think that this would have helped reduce poverty but the number of people in poverty has remained mostly unchanged.

1 comment:

Alycia (Crowley Party) said...

I totally agree. INFACT I read something the other day on facebook that just made me about die from laughter.
Someone had said, "If I have to take a drug test to work, you should have to take a drug test to get on welfare!"
I mean, right?!