HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 10, 2003 One young man has posted a long screed on this site lauding the Democrat Party as being "for ALL the people, not just the rich." In the very first paragraph of his column he wrote the following: "All people should be thought of and taken care of, whether or not they are different in race, or income, or where they live." How typical of the leftist mindset so prevalent in the Democrat Party today. No one should have to endure "being taken care of"--certainly not by the boobs in the Democrat Party whose idea of "taking care of" people is giving them little dribs and drabs of assistance. Not enough to make them independent, mind you. Just enough to keep them dependent upon the Democrats, so they'll keep going to the polls and pulling that lever for the Jackass Party. A Democrat administration, LBJ's, aided and abetted by a completely Democrat Congress, started the so-called "War on Poverty" in 1966. Thirty years and 5 TRILLION dollars later, there was just as much poverty in America as when the programs were begun. That means that every American alive today, men, women and children, would have to shell out $17,500 apiece to finance it. In other words, it cost every family of 4 in the U.S. $70,000...for NOTHING. No good has resulted from this massive theft of our hard- earned money. What it DID do, was establish several million people who were dependent upon the Democrats for every aspect of their lives. The Democrats paid their bills, bought their groceries, provided a roof over their heads, gave them government-sponsored medical care. I know that some of you will think that's a good thing. It's not. One of the great minds of our time, Thomas Sowell, has said that NOTHING is more demeaning to an individual than for his government and his society to have absolutely NO expectations for him. The whole concept saps initiative, destroys self-respect, encourages idleness, stifles ambition, encourages substance abuse all the while draining needed resources from the national treasury. Most conservatives believe that the Democrats designed these programs with just that in mind for a dependent population is a pliable population and can be counted on to retain their "benefactors" in positions of power indefinitely. How do you think Robert Byrd, the ex-Klansman from West Virginia, keeps getting elected-- particularly in view of the fact that he's very nearly a moron intellectually? West Virginia is one of our poorer States and Byrd uses his position on the Senate Ways and Means Committee to get goodies for those in West Virginia that depend on him--never enough to become INdependent of him, though. I have no wish to encourage anyone to change political affiliations, but it's important that those here who profess to be Democrats understand that what the Democrats SAY they want for Americans and what they do TO Americans are two entirely different things--at least for the last 40 years or so. Remember, it was a Democrat who got us into the war in Korea (and a Republican who got us out.) It was a Democrat who got us into the war in Vietnam (and a Republican who got us out.) It was a Democrat who got us into the morass of Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and it'll be a Republican who gets us finally, once and for all out. The only conflicts in recent times that were begun during Republican administrations have been swift, decisive victories where we got in, won and then got out. The same will be ultimately true in Iraq this time, too, for unlike the Democrats, we have no imperial designs on other countries. Also, Republican Presidents all honor and respect our military professionals and leave the planning and the conduct of the wars to THEM--not to the petty bureaucrats in Washington D.C. That trend was begun with Truman and Korea and it was a disaster. The same can be said about LBJ and Vietnam. I'll leave it to you to judge. Which is more "compassionate" towards the less fortunate among us? The Democrat way of doling out small assistance in dribs and drabs and keeping the poor dependent upon them, or the Republican way of creating a climate in which people are encouraged to be self-reliant and where jobs are created, opening opportunities for these people to become productive, self-supporting individuals and gain a measure of self-respect in the process? I know which answer MOST Americans agree with. How about you guys? ------------ Email David Allen Jared: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
