Unsustainable dependence

As the Democrats moan about government cuts to vital programs, the reality is that states are growing more dependent on federal support as time goes by, regardless of the relatively small ups and downs in spending, mostly ups.

Because state governments would be rejected if they go to citizens of the states and ask for higher taxes to pay for the spending, the states hide the increased spending within the federal spending on state. This can't last, and the end result will be that the very poor who state politicians pretend to protect are made more and more vulnerable each day. When the day comes that the consequences can no longer be avoided, the poor will suffer while the politicians who set them up will blame the rich and scream for social justice. If federal and state governments didn't waste so much on spending that ensures they maintain power, there would be enough to help the truly needy. Until we get welfare out of the hands of government, the system will continue to unravel until it falls apart completely.

Morning Joe 4/19/2012 -- welfare and a living wage

On Morning Joe today they were doing some of the same old Romney bashing as they said the polls that show a statistical tie are confounding considering that women hate Romney and his popularity number is 29% -- yes, very perplexing.

Then, at the end of the first segment, Tavis Smiley and Cornell West came on and it became interesting. No one on the panel, John Meacham, Scarborough, Barnicle and Geist, challenged either Smiley or West who talked about the need for government to spend more on welfare for the poor. Here's a chart:

How we can say that welfare spending, which is only behind healthcare for seniors and education, which are also forms of welfare, is insufficient, I don't know. Scarborough bought the premise that government should cut defense and use that money to create jobs with a living wage. Defense should be cut of all unnecessary spening, but not to be poured into a failing welfare programs. Scarborough didn't ask what Smiley meant by living wage and how this can be guaranteed, or what kind of jobs government should create. No one asked why this amount of spending is not sufficient and how more spending will help. They simply praised Smiley and West and allowed them to spout platitudes regarding their righteous cause and smears against free markets, unfettered capitalism.

Since FDR, and especially since LBJ, tax-payer money has poured into welfare and each year people like Smilet and West say we need more and more and more -- it's never enough, and the problem gets worse. How can this be? What was so insulting is that Scarborough, Barnicle and the rest stated that society is resentful toward the poor, complacent. This is why the Left is imploding.

Up with Chris Hayes 4/8/2012 -- More liberal propaganda

Several points of contention I'd like to address after watching the first part, then the very end, of Haye's Leftist program. It has to be labeled Leftist so that anyone who's never seen the program will know that when watching they'll get perspectives from the Left only, mostly modern liberal perpectives with a lot of progressive propaganda that's becoming the same as liberal propaganda.

I don't think we can really separate liberals and progressives anymore. Some liberals in congress are from states that push them to the center, but when they can get by with, liberals in congress support the progressive agenda. I don't see any influential modern liberals opposing our statist system which under Obama has passed major legislation that serves to increase State power over the economy and citizens' free choices. Some liberals have complained that the interventions were poorly designed or didn't go far enough, but none are calling for roll-back of the interventions and the establishment of a free market. Liberals aren't even fighting the foreign interventions of this progressive administration. There's more effort to manufacture the perception that Obama is a moderate than there is to oppose his advancements in State power and control.  This fits right into my current on-going blog theme regarding what actually distinguishes liberalism from other political philosophies -- what is different about modern liberalism as compared to progressivism or social democracy or modern socialism? What is liberal about modern liberalism?

The Up with Chris Hayes panel, which included Jonathan Alter, Richard Kim and Michelle Goldberg, talked about why Romney is inferior to Obama, and it became such a circle jerk Hayes had to push this group of Leftists to come up with something other than warm consensus. Group think was on full display. Alter made a weak attempt at presenting a scenario in which the Left underestimates the strengths of Romney, but it ended in the group getting a kick out of Little Richard Kim talking about Romney as an Ayn Rand character mixed with Mad Men fantasy and  Hunger Games as the reality. This propaganda is so out of touch with the reality of the upcoming battle between Obama and Romney, that the guests would be embarrassed if any of this pap is replayed at the end of the year.

That was all bad enough, but, at the end of the program, Goldberg did her liberal sneer at concerns over government dependency by claiming that welfare spending is down and people are having nightmare experiences in poverty with funds drying up. Here is a report from Heritage -- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government. Now, you can say that Heritage is a rightwing organization, but the numbers they put in their report can be refuted if they're wrong, so, I advise Hayes to either get experts on to refute the numbers or retract that bit of propaganda. I think we all know the reality. Welfare spending and dependency on government are increasing.