1. “Don’t shove your morals down my throat!”
If you know anyone who is liberal or ever watch the news, then you have heard the “don’t shove morals down our throat” argument. For those of you who don’t know, I debunked this years ago in what is now known as the moral values fallacy. Yes – I am proud to say that if you Google “moral values fallacy” the first page that comes up is my article on the subject.
Back to the point. Liberals say they believe in the “don’t shove your morals down my throat” doctrine, so let’s hold them to it. Why are they forcing their moral value of helping the poor on everyone else? Everyone has their opinion on how best to help the poor, so why should a government monopoly (welfare) exist?
It seems logical that people should be able to choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking:
If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone!
You self-righteous sons of bitches. How dare you think that. Rather than argue that ludicrous point, I will point the readers of this article to a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks. Long story short, conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Read ‘em and weep. Liberals shouldn't worry about conservatives not giving enough money to the poor. However, I (and I'm sure many conservatives would agree with me) would be willing to trust the libs will give a fair share to charity if it meant ending the government mandated welfare state.
2. “Freedom of choice!”
One liberal argument goes like this:
I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe it that it is a choice that an individual needs to make for themselves and that others and government should stay out of such decisions.
Personally, I couldn’t disagree more because that decision ends a human life – which is murder. However the argument does work for welfare. Personally, I believe it is a good human's responsibility to give resources – not just money necessarily, but time and used items – to those who are less fortunate.
I don’t think, however, that Big Brother should decide who gives, how much they give, and to whom they give. That is micromanaging someone’s finances. If your mother had as much say over your finances as Big Brother, you would think she was very overbearing. Yet we accept the fact that the government somehow knows best.
This flies in the face of facts and history since the government has spent trillions on welfare and hasn’t put a dent in the poverty levels.
3. “Don’t be simpleminded, be nuanced like me…”
How many times have we heard the libs say Bush’s arguments are simpleminded and ignore the nuances. Sometimes it gets to the point where it is comical. One man’s nuance is another mans nitpicking I suppose. Sometimes I think liberals just like the word “nuance”. I can understand them – I like it too.
However, there is no case of ignored nuances more prevalent in American politics than in the way we treat poor people. The liberal line of logic goes something like this:
Rich people have money. Rich people can use money to buy things. People like things. Poor people don’t have money. Poor people can’t buy things. Poor people are sad. Poor people need money.
It goes something like that anyway. Whatever the line of logic, it ends with poor people needing money. That is why welfare – the main way the government helps the poor – involves handouts. After all, poor people need money, so let’s give it to them.
Thankfully, I, along with many nuanced conservatives understand that this is false. You know the problem with poor people? They have freedom of choice – that is the problem. As long as people have the freedom to make bad choices, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to drop out of high school, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to get pregnant with no husband to support them, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to abuse mind-altering substances, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to refinance their homes every six months, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy cars that are above their means, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy 30 lottery tickets a week when they can barely make rent, poverty will exist.
The fact is that most poor people have made big mistakes in their lives – and more often than not, they repeat those mistakes.
4. True compassion…
If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.
One sentence KO.
5. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.
More liberal logic:
George Bush has too much power and he is abusing it.
My simpleminded foes. Here is a line of logic that makes sense.
Money = power. More money = more power. Power will corrupt. The more power one has, the more corrupt they can be. Therefore, more money = more power = more corruption.
If you want a less corrupt government, take away their money. That is the only way. You cannot reform government to be subordinate. It is an untameable monster. This is why the founding fathers (in their infinite wisdom) pushed for limited government. Since welfare essentially makes up half of the 2006 2.6 trillion budget, it’s a logical target when wanting to curb government power.
Rather than just being another asshole critic, I will support what I have said with answers.
1. Pushing morals on others unnecessarily is a real issue. One way to avoid this in our welfare state would be to allow people to opt out of Social Security, and put that money in their 401k.
I know the arguments against this, but if you can honestly claim that you feel safer with Social Security than a 401k, then you are a retard. The fact is that no one actually believes the stock market is too risky to invest in. That idea is rhetoric used by Democrats to feel better about the fact that they have taken an anti-freedom stance on this issue. Every single Democrat in the House and Senate has money in the stock market. When they pull their money out, I will start to believe them when they say privatizing Social Security is risky.
2. Choice is the key word here. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the government said that we have to give ten percent of our money to a certain type of cause. If one person was helped by a soup kitchen when they were down and out, they could give all their charity to that soup kitchen. If others thought that their college was responsible for their success, they could give their ten percent to their school or to a fund to help students pay tuition.
The beauty of choice is that when it turns out that soup kitchen or that college was found wasting money, funds would immediately drop off the next year. No one would continue giving their money to a cause that was careless with their money. The result would be a strong checks and balances system against fraud and waste.
And hey, just to make the libs happy, we would even let people still give their tax dollars to current government programs – like food stamps. Hurray.
3. Wake up. We are never going to end poverty. With freedom comes responsibility. The best thing we can do to end poverty is to improve education.
Let’s stop teaching hocus pocus global warming BS to the kids and start teaching them how to shop for a mortgage, the benefits of buying a house while you’re young, and about personal finance. Not to mention how to speak, read and write English.
4. Admit it, the best place to go for help is to family and close friends. That is what life is about. Making personal relationships with people you care about, then depending on each other when things get rough.
5. I don’t even know what to put here. Most liberals can’t admit that their welfare system creates a powerful government. Let me appeal to you now. There is a reason that wars like Vietnam and Iraq didn’t happen until government got bigger… frankly, governments had no money to fight wars before then. You could also make the argument that having a large peacetime military has a lot to do with it, but that argument is for another day. Fact is, more money = more power, more power = more corruption, and all of this means less freedom.Powered by Sidelines