Right Wing Politics = Social Darwinism

Am I the only one who seems to see an inherent trend in right wing political ideology regarding views on the poor? Right wing posters on this site have a strong habit of stereotyping welfare recipients, unemployment recipients and just about anyone under the poverty level. More recently, I have actually heard people on this site advocating the dismantling of the entire welfare system. The only alternative system for welfare I have heard from the right was giving churches the responsibility of taking care of the needy, and anyone with half a brain would realize this could never work.
So my queston to you, right wing posters is what is your solution to poverty? I am not at all opposed to some conservative ideals. I happen to be a huge fan of Ron Pauls in general, especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve and War, however I haven't heard any solid solution from him either in regards to poverty. So what is your solution? I really hope social darwinism isn't your answer. I willingly await to be proven wrong.

By the way, some quick welfare facts from NY state to clear up some myths that have been circulating through the forums.

In order to be on welfare in New York, you must fill out 15 job applications a week to employers who ARE HIRING.

You receive 60 a month per additional child in addition to a 1000 dollar tax credit per child.

You can stay on welfare for up to 5 years.

Welfare may subsidize an associates degree at a community college but will not pay for a bachelors degree.

I'm looking forward to the replies.

Now that you point it out, it is a lot like that.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Phlynx]

reply to post by The Transhumanist

You can stay on welfare for up to 5 years.

Why in the hell would a perfectly healthy adult need to be on welfare for 5 years. If you cannot find a job in a year you aren't trying or you are a tattoo, ear ring covered freak that scares the hell out of everyone that interviews you.

But you are right it is social darwinism. If we don't, then we have a loser breading their loser genes with some other loser then producing loser offspring. They can have unlimited numbers of these crack babies, because they don't have to pay to feed them or for their medical bills.

The rest of us bust our asses and can only have a few non-loser kids because it is not a wise financial move.

Therefore you get more losers and less winners and the country gets all messed up like it is now.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST IS WHAT THE UNIVERSE DEMANDS!

Now I am not for Eugenics or any of that, but we shouldn't encourage people's bad life choices by rewarding them.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

Obvious troll is obvious

Generally speaking regardless of the subject...

the right is wrong.

Originally posted by grover
Generally speaking regardless of the subject...

the right is wrong.

Ahh Grover, so glad you could provide some insightful comentary. I was afraid we might miss out on your decorative espousing of social commentary. You may have just embarrassed just about every liberal on this site. Or would you care to elaborate further?


[edit on 14-10-2009 by mikerussellus]

reply to post by The Transhumanist


When I saw this thread, immediate knee-jerk reaction was to point out welfare reform and how it worked. Still looking, but to be frank, couldn't find dependable statistics.

What would you do, OP? Just curious, but we have a system that obviously needs work. I will admit that welfare reform is not consistant, but what do you do? Keep people on the rolls for years? Or provide a social-economic condition where employers are actively looking for people to work, thus getting them off welfare?

reply to post by mikerussellus


I couldn't agree with you more. We need work and shouldn't be encouraging people to be on welfare. However there are not enough jobs coming from private business. Short term solution: more infrastructure. New deal type programs that offer both unspecialized and specialized workers jobs. This could be done if we started investing tax dollars in renewable energy like building geothermal plants and wave power turbines. Corporations would not be so willing because they can't exactly profit off of renewable energy.

Long term solution: I'm a technocrat and I happen to agree with many of the points brought up in the Venus Project. People are equal and it's about time everyone is treated as such. Equal access to energy, technology, goods and services.

reply to post by Remixtup


I think this is proof that you can't offer any solutions. I'm not trolling here I am trying to put forth an open discussion about right-wing solutions to poverty and alternatives to the welfare system.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

reply to post by The Transhumanist


Just a conservative viewpoint here, but instead of more government jobs, lower the corporate tax rates, lower all taxes, and encourage entrepeneurs to reinvest in their own companies. Let them hire people, keep the money "in the system" to then generate MORE innovators to create MORE companies to hire MORE people.

Left government/right government is ALL bad. I say NO government intervention and let the American people solve the problems themselves.

reply to post by mikerussellus

I honestly believe that as things go the right is wrong...

The right is wrong about welfare...while no one should make a career on the dole but at the same time like it or not welfare provides a measure of stablity to society...even the Romans understood that.

The right is wrong about deregulation and business repeatedly history has shown that unregulated business does not police itself nor does the market take care of itself.

The right is totally off base regarding government...while I am not a big fan of government I understand that with a nation of 350 million a small government is not only impossible it is undersireable. If we reduced the government down to the barest bones of justice and protection the fabric of our society would begin to disintergrate...shared culture or religion do not hold us together in this nation...government does.

The right is wrong about Obama...he is a tool of the status quo like all presidents and as such will only do their will and they will allow him to only do so much that they will profit from...to call him Hitler or any of that other nonsense just makes the ones doing it look like idiots.

The right is wrong about dealing with terrorism like a war...doing so does nothing more than encourage the enemy and provide them with their best recruitment tools.

I could go on but I honestly cannot think of a single thing the right is right about.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by Remixtup

 

I'm not trolling here I am trying to put forth an open discussion about right-wing solutions to poverty and alternatives to the welfare system.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

Hard to tell with a title like that. Poverty is not something that can be "ended". No matter how advanced a society, there will always be those on the bottom rung. People in poverty in the U.S. live like kings compared to poverty elsewhere. Poverty is, therefore, relative.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

I honestly believe that as things go the right is wrong...

The right is wrong about welfare...while no one should make a career on the dole but at the same time like it or not welfare provides a measure of stablity to society...even the Romans understood that.

Sure, keep the masses docile, and no problem for the government.

The right is wrong about deregulation and business repeatedly history has shown that unregulated business does not police itself nor does the market take care of itself.

The only problem with business policing itself, is that the government can't keep their hands out of it. Constantly changing the rules, imposing higher taxes and further muddying the waters with inane regulations.

The right is totally off base regarding government...while I am not a big fan of government I understand that with a nation of 350 million a small government is not only impossible it is undersireable. If we reduced the government down to the barest bones of justice and protection the fabric of our society would begin to disintergrate...shared culture or religion do not hold us together in this nation...government does.

Government will rule people as long as the people rely on the government. The government bends the rules so that society feels that it needs the government. Like some kind of needy mother that pampers an adult child. Sickening.

The right is wrong about Obama...he is a tool of the status quo like all presidents and as such will only do their will and they will allow him to only do so much that they will profit from...to call him Hitler or any of that other nonsense just makes the ones doing it look like idiots.

Obama is pushing an agenda of social engineering. Don't give in to what the "happy group think" tells you. He is doing his best to destroy the fabric of this constitution and american way. But I agree that Bush was doing similar things as well.

The right is wrong about dealing with terrorism like a war...doing so does nothing more than encourage the enemy and provide them with their best recruitment tools.

It is a war. I know, work with, drink with, am friends with, some of the best, bravest, strongest, most noble human beings that have walked the planet.

I could go on but I honestly cannot think of a single thing the right is right about.

The you just aren't opening your eyes.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by mikerussellus]

That's true. We have made huge strides forward for people living under the poverty line in America. About 20k for a family of four surely do "live like kings" compared to people in the third world living in dollar a day poverty. That however isn't enough to justify ignoring the persisting problem or refusal to reform the existing system.

As for the conservative alternative of lowering taxes and regulation, well it really just gives corporations more power and everyone knows most jobs come from small business and not corporations. It really boils down to a choice between big business with no accountability but to the biggest shareholders controlling social policy or a big government with (some) accountability to the voters controlling social policy. Neither is a perfect solution but to me at least, the lesser of two evils is clear. I at least have some control over who my representatives are and what they do where I have no control of a corporate CEO unless I am wealthy enough to purchase a significant share in the company.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
Am I the only one who seems to see an inherent trend in right wing political ideology regarding views on the poor? Right wing posters on this site have a strong habit of stereotyping welfare recipients, unemployment recipients and just about anyone under the poverty level.

And The Republican Response Is:

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
Why in the hell would a perfectly healthy adult need to be on welfare for 5 years. If you cannot find a job in a year you aren't trying or you are a tattoo, ear ring covered freak that scares the hell out of everyone that interviews you.

Haha, myth confirmed.

Seriously, the truth is, if they took the time and evergy to care about anyone who was below the poverty level, they couldn't sleep peacefully at night and tel themselves that they are good Christians. But if they are right about Heaven, then from what the Bible says, they would have an easier time forcing a camel through the eye of a needle than getting in.

reply to post by The Transhumanist


Then for the love of mercy, get the government to lower taxes on small businesses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AAAAAAAIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Why is this so fracking hard to understand?

Obama and his fracking ILK are RAISING, RAISING taxes on these SMALL businesses and liberals are just standing by, wringing their hands.


I think I just had a fracking stroke.

reply to post by Remixtup


Well you aren't exactly right on that. There wouldn't be a bottom rung in a Technate, an anarcho-syndacalist or libertarian socialst nation, to name a few solutions. People have made the argument that everyone would then be equal in poverty, and I don't think that is exactly fair. If you abolish the wage system altogether and give everyone equal access to goods and services by automating production and running at maximum efficiency on free renewable energy, everyone would not be living a 100k a year lifestyle by today's standards, but you would have food, clothing, shelter and equal access to technology which isn't that bad of a trade off.

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla
Haha, myth confirmed.

Seriously, the truth is, if they took the time and evergy to care about anyone who was below the poverty level, they couldn't sleep peacefully at night and tel themselves that they are good Christians. But if they are right about Heaven, then from what the Bible says, they would have an easier time forcing a camel through the eye of a needle than getting in.

Lay off the rhetoric Baron, some of us conservatives are pagans who honestly believe that government intervention will only hurt America more.

www.worldhunger.org...

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

At the very least, if we distributed food equally, there would be enough to feed everyone on earth more than enough to live comfortably.

reply to post by mikerussellus


money.cnn.com...