The Government Wasn’t Intended to Be a Charity, Much Less to Take Money From You and Give It to Others

0
362

I am dancing in my head images of Joe Biden’s $1.7 trillion Omnibus. I have a question for my Democrat friends who are enjoying the benefits of my wealth.

Let’s move on. I’d like three quotes to begin that summarize the reality of today’s Democrat Party. Friedrich A. Hayek is a well-known Austrian-British economist.

It doesn’t matter whether you treat people equally, or try to make everyone equal. De Tocqueville says that the second type of servitude is a new kind.

The second is from George Bernard Shaw, an Irish playwright who was also a committed socialist.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul is able to always count on Paul’s support.

Third is Thomas Sowell’s wisdom as an economist and political commentator.

It’s hard to understand why you would want the money you have worked so hard for but not steal it from someone else.

While Shaw’s observation is understood by the left, Hayek’s is ignored and the left refuses to face Dr. Sowell’s harsh reality.

John Stossel is a former TV personality who was also a political commentator. He began an opinion piece for The Patriot Post using the following quote by James Madison.

Charity does not fall under the government’s legal obligation.

Stossel then shared his views on charity and the evolution of views regarding the federal government’s role.

I will donate to The Doe Fund. This charity aids ex-convicts to find meaning in life through work.

I’ll donate to Student Sponsor Partners, which helps at-risk kids escape bad “public (government-run)” schools.

SSP sends kids to Catholic schools. Even though I’m not Catholic, I give to Catholic schools to help families break the cycle of poverty.

When I was young, I believed that government would help people escape poverty. But then I saw that the programs failed.

I now realize that government actions can cause just as much harm as good.

It’s clear that Stossel is correct in his last two sentences.

How many decades has it been since Democrats claimed they would “lift people from poverty”? Six.

President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 War on Poverty has been a failure for nearly 60 years according to a 2014 Heritage Foundation Report.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America” on January 1964. The taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s war since then. This figure is adjusted for inflation and is three times greater than all military wars since the American Revolution.

Lyndon B. Johnson starts the War on Poverty.

Johnson declared an “unconditional warfare against poverty in America” in January 1964. The taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s war since then. This figure is adjusted for inflation and is three times greater than the total military wars since the American Revolution.

Last year, the government spent $943 billion to provide food, cash, and medical care to low- and medium-income Americans.

More than 100 million Americans were provided with some form of welfare assistance at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. The U.S. Census Bureau just released its annual poverty report.

According to the report, 14.5 percent of Americans are poor in 2013. Surprisingly this is the same as it was in 1967, three decades before the War on Poverty began.

This was more than ten years ago. What’s the deal?

The poverty rate in February 2022 was 14.4%. The poverty rate was 14.4% in February 2022.

Conclusion. It is not necessary for us to continue our experiments. Paul is becoming less wealthy and not more successful than his children.

This phenomenon can be described using the term “learned helplessness”.

Feeling helpless can result from repeated stressful situations.

What is the secret to the success of the Democrat Party?

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, this fact has been a well-known fact in the Democratic elite. This is a well-known fact among Democrat elites since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. You can also say “Buh-bye!” To the Democrat base.

Why should a sane American vote Democrat in the first place? An economically sound American would prefer to give the government money for redistribution than to be donated to the charity of his or her choice

Conclusion:

Contrary to what the Democrat Party wants low-information voters to believe, we are a decent and moral nation. This means we as citizens have an obligation to take care of those who are disabled or unable to.