It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Left: Advocates For Poverty

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
It is always tragically amusing when I see people buying into the utterly false belief that the Left is “on the side of the poor”, “looking out for the little guy” . In a skewed sense, I suppose this is true, but only in a very insidious way.

Marxists/Socialists/Leftists do support the poor, but in a way that ensures perpetual poverty.

In the "Great Society" model, the poor are herded into public housing projects and given bare subsistence through government subsidies ("welfare"). The system is designed such that any attempt to escape poverty is brutally repressed.

The proof of this is the history of the Great Society itself, and its legacy of generations of impoverished people living in virtual slavery to the government in hopelessness and despair.

For far too many Black Americans, freedom from the plantations was replaced by an even more terrible form of slavery in the inner cities, a trap far too few have been able to escape from. Now illegal immigrants are being sucked into the same morass. Lured by the prospect of a better life and better paying jobs, far too many are ending up on public assistance in the barrios, recruits for the next “Great Society”.

The reward for trillions of dollars spent over decades is a permanent underclass that is abused by the very people who claim to be their friends. It is the worst form of treachery, and there is a special place in hell for those who subjugate others this way.

The fallacy and deceit of the leftist agenda is evidenced by the behavior of its leaders. They tirelessly "advocate for the poor" as they fly from coast to coast in private jets and attend fundraisers in limousines. They talk about the “will of the people” while shouting down dissent and heaping scorn and ridicule on any who dare disagree with their royal selves.

They express open contempt for the "little people", making up derogatory epithets for them seemingly week by week, and spouting them in their slogans, all the while laughing behind their backs at what a bunch of suckers we are for believing them.

"Soak the rich!" they cry, as an excuse to raise taxes on working class families, all the while making sure they exploit all the loopholes they have custom-legislated for themselves in their own tax returns. Many of these "tax the rich" advocates are rich themselves, and pay a much smaller percentage of their multimillion-dollar income than a middle-income family of four.

They call for small business loans while taxing small business owners so mercilessly that they end up defaulting on those loans, thus preserving the monopolies of their multinational corporate patrons. Using their positions of political power to control the markets, they ensure that only their dynasties and those of their patrons and allies can survive in an ever more restrictive and oppressive legal environment.

They carve out pork for their rich buddies by attaching multi-billion-dollar riders to bills allegedly targeted at aiding the poor. Then they turn around and make sure the actual money for the bill goes to their friends and constituents in the "poverty industry", built on exploiting welfare money spent by those who are desperate.

Both Left and Right turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, the Left so that they can import voters and add more dependents to the welfare roles, the Right so that they can import slave labor to allow their big-business buddies to fatten their bottom lines.

And all of this comes out of the pockets of those taxpayers who cannot afford to pay legions of accountants to get them out of paying ever-increasing taxes. In other words, “the rest of us”.

If you believe the Left is any more interested in helping the poor or working class families than the Right, then you are being played as a stooge of an exploitive ruling class. The leaders of the “Liberal Left” don’t give a damn about your well-being, only theirs.

You cannot con an honest man, and those who think they are getting something for nothing from socialism are indeed being conned. We’ll find out that free lunch wasn’t so free when we get the bill for it -- years from now, and with interest. More likely, our children and grandchildren will find out just how generous we really were, as they struggle with the legacy of debt and irresponsibility we have left behind for them.

Is the Right any better? Hell no! Just as the Left robs the people to feed their cronies, so does the Right. They’re just a different set of cronies. Left or Right, they are all crooks, taking by force of statute what no decent moral code would ever allow them to take openly.

But look at how each side uses demagoguery and bigotry to inflame their “masses” into obedience. Buying into either extreme is a fool’s game. A game far too many people play, and there is more than enough evidence of it in these forums.

The truth is that both the Left and the Right are in business for themselves, and no one else. The difference is that one side is relatively honest about it, although both use deliberate deception for their own profit.

When you contribute posts that slam the “military industrial complex” on the one hand, while applauding “programs to help the poor” on the other, you should know that those who see through such spoon-fed nonsense are laughing at your obvious hypocrisy and false, self-righteous piety.

Bluster, sloganeering and arm-waving notwithstanding, there is no legitimate pride to be found in publicly proclaiming that you are just a tool.



[edit on 11/20/2004 by Majic]




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
what you seem to be condemning is the perverted manifestation of the marxist ideal in nations such as the soviet union, north korea and china. The truth is, if you were to look a little harder, there are also examples of a communist revolution that, although under massive pressure from the international capitalist community, still managed to stay true to the ideals which the original revolution was based on. For example, consider cuba. Those such as the Castro brothers, Guevara and others incited the revolution in the face of mounting fascism from batista's government. Even though the US has done all it can (short of full-scale invasion) over the past 50 years to crush the revolution, it is still going. Basic services and amentities were taken out of the market and made public. The economic system was made much more democratic through worker-elected representatives. Education and healthcare were made free to all. Cuba is on the up and up, despite the horrors it has faced from the imperialist west.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Welfare and the Great Society are great, they feed brainwashed K-12 zombies straight into the MIC.

Left / Right are closer than most think, and provide political entertainment in front of a consistent machine the likes of which the population never even sees or understands.

Good thread.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The left isnt trying to take away overtime pay and abolish unions. That would be the right. The left isnt trying to keep minimum wage where its at. That would be the right. Look at how OUR government is doing its job for the people. If you want to compare it to any nations government, compare it to Hitler era Germany. The same docterns are being applied to us.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
All I know is that the so call "help" to the working class as tax cuts, has just put a bandaid to the problem of lack of programs to help this families.

You got a tax brake!!!! but the truth is that you will spend more on emergency health care bill because most low income in our country can not afford it a health insurance.

The poverty in our country is getting bigger and children living in that poverty line has icreased in the last four years.

The gap in this country is getting worst and now is not help in the near future because our government is running empty.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Yeah, the left does suck. As a matter of fact, I think they are in leagues with those wierd "vampire" clubs that dabble in drinking blood.

That's what I heard at bible study at least, so it has to be somewhat true.

But seriously, it really is too bad that many don't see the problems inherent to the socialist approach in America, and its development into the Democratic monolith it is today.

It's just too bad the Right is too complacent to do anything but merely slow the tide of ruin.

Perhaps you should spend a bit more time crapping all over the Right for allowing themselves to be as superficial politically as the Left you demonize.

Try a test; I call it the "Why Test". A person who has actual working knowledge and a formulated opinion on a topic can easily go through 3-4 "Why's" before the responses become dull.

Commonly, most people on either side can't take more than one or two without running to some tired and misrepresented banner phrase that the DNC and the RNC pass out like pills.

Ever notice how every level of the Democratic and Republican party stood by the same garbage sound bits for MONTHS during the election.

The speaker's, or debater’s, delivery was about the only original idea to be heard.

Hell, even the political commentators used them to death.


Here's a good question; does it really matter?



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Left & right are all headed up by rich folk. They both do their thang on the backs of the "little people". If I'm going to be ridden hard and put away wet by my government, my only question is - do I want to be put away in a nice warm barn with a full feedbag, or in a drafty shack with a handful of rained on straw?

In my experience, lefty government tend to provide safety nets in times of need, i.e. welfare, unemployment, medical coupons, WIC. Righty governments tend to take those nets away and give out corporate welfare. Then they train righty-followers to cry about how they're being forced to pay for single mothers to sit home and eat bon bons.

Having been poor, been middle class, been poor, been upper middle class, been poor, and now finally middle class again. I have a first hand long term working knowledge of where those "free" checks go, and what it takes to get them. I also know what party has been in charge when I needed help, and how long it took to get that help.

You can spout all the party lines you want about lefties trying to keep the po' folk down by tying them to public housing and welfare, but that dog don't hunt. 99% of the po' folk I know got stuck in poverty when they ran into hard times, got low enough to qualify for assistance, then had that assistance yanked out from under them before they could catch back up.

I personally knew people injured at work, lost everything, got started in a job retraining program Clinton funded, then when Bush cancelled it, got dumped in the middle of the classes and told to go to work and there would be no more disability or unemployment money. And I personally know if you have absolutely nothing, nothing but one car you own outright, you cannot get food stamps, section 8, or emergency food assistance. Meanwhile Bush lets his pals make a fortune cutting down our public forests, sell the logs overseas, and a town full of mill workers get told tough luck, while their wives have to go to relationship classes to learn to be nice to their out of work hubbies, just to get food stamps.


Been there. Done it. Right wing leaders are bad for po' folk. Anyone tells you otherwise ain't that po'.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The truth is that both the Left and the Right are in business for themselves, and no one else. The difference is that one side is relatively honest about it, although both use deliberate deception for their own profit.


I'll assume you mean the right is more honest.

While this notion could easily be dismissed on the sheer basis of asserted "values," I realize you're probably limiting the context to economic arguments, and will do so as well.

I suppose it depends on your perception of the right's double speak whether one buy's into them being honest or not. If you've got the code book, which I'm sure you do, then yes, they seem fairly upfront about their greed and self serving interests through the haze of "compassionate" rhetoric. But it's the rhetoric that's all a lie.

Even reveresed the "tough talk" (in certain circles) may be an even bigger lie. Hasn't Bush expanded Health & Human Services (Welfare) well beyond any previous President? I know he expanded $1.8 billion specifically for immigrants (Hispanic value voters) in the first couple years much to the chagrin of pretty much everyone in his base.

Forgive me for not keeping up, but I stopped paying attention to any economic arguments about 2 years ago when they stopped mattering as a divining difference between parties. I know Conservatives (like Liberals) like to pretend they have a party, so I rarely feel the need to burst those bubbles.

I really don't see a point in pretending there's much of a difference in economics. Other than feel good hate speech for AM radio, there's little difference in the amount or frequency of one's welfare check.

I will say some differences exist and the urban housing project example, cited above, is about 30 years past it's prime given city planning today. But the mixed use, regentrification discussion is for another time.

Speaking just then about the last election, the biggest economic differences I saw were Kerry wanted to give more "targeted" tax cuts for the working poor and middle class to be applied to healthcare, while rolling back loopholes and rates for top earners (earners is a generous term for those living on interest, but I'm feeling generous). His main thrust there was merely balancing the budget, not punishing the rich.

Bush was more concerned about protecting the top "earners" and (thankfully) was willing to let the rest of us have some crumbs as well. Though his dire sense of "personal responsibility" made the rebates/cuts available for plasma TV's, crack and tatoo's as well as Health Insurance. The uninsured then, still get sick and we still pay for it...so the cycle of poverty continues more under conservatives, just as it would if they succeed in elminating Social Security.

I know, I know...I can spend my money better than the government. Well, it's not me I'm worried about. And it's not my bleeding heart, but my bleeding wallet that concerns me. When a Republican ever cuts something...ANYTHING...you'll have something. But I'm not seeing them begin to allow people to die of starvation or disease in the streets anytime soon, so I'll stick with my progressive. preventative economic political preferences for now, thank you.

My thinking? On economics, Democrats are the conservatives, and Republicans really have nothing to say on the subject. They're a value party now, which translates to nothing more than moral authoritarianism. And don't tell me there's no difference there.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Yeah, the left does suck. As a matter of fact, I think they are in leagues with those wierd "vampire" clubs that dabble in drinking blood.





For a good vampire story, read the life and times of Dick Cheney, and if you really want to spook yourself read "the family" an account of the Bush family. ** skin crawls**



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I'll assume you mean the right is more honest.

Actually, I was hoping you would be pleased that I left the question open. That was deliberate.

In truth, I really have no idea which side is more honest or dishonest. They both leave a great deal to be desired in that department due to dichotomistic, dogmatic thinking.

I know my tone is very condemnatory with respect to the Left, Marxism, et al, but actually I think they have contributed some tremendously positive things to our society.

I am not ignorant of the world under old feudalism, or the new feudalisms and fascisms of the Industrial Age. I am familiar with the philosophies that led the U.S. to incorporate as a representative democracy, and you don‘t need to remind me about the era of the Big Trusts and robber barons.

My primary complaint is against the extremes, both Right and Left. In this case, I think it’s worth pointing out the gross failures of Marxist ideology when the dogma is applied to the real world. There will be no Marxist utopia, no matter how many people are slaughtered. Human nature forbids it, I’m sorry.

In my article above I'm bagging on the Left because I saw some comments about how they care about the poor. Utter nonsense, like claiming that the Right is for small government. These sorts of things are nothing but demagoguery for the gullible and tend to set me off when I see people mindlessly parroting them. It’s just not true!

The truth is that in politics, as in every human endeavor, there are no saints, only sinners. I very much intend to present a similar critique of the Right, but am still researching. They are surprisingly complex compared to the Left, more than most Leftists might suspect. You may find my analysis of them interesting, but it won’t be nearly as brief.

In any case, my purpose here is not to try to win hearts and minds to a cause, just point out some glaring fallacies that deserve consideration. That may not change any religions, but hopefully those of you who may see yourselves as the targets of my criticism will accept it as just that: criticism of some terrible errors, but not condemnation of you as human beings. That sort of critique would have no value whatsoever.

My hope is that, perhaps informed by the awareness of these things, we can do something about fixing them.




[edit on 11/20/2004 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Well, you get no qualms from me bagging on leftist Marxists Majic...except in linking them to modern ideals of Democrats (FDR and the Great Society).

There we probably disagree. But maybe not so much. As I believe the villification of everything that made this country great the past 40 years came from the constant reinvention "win at any costs" efforts of the reaction party of the right, you're trying to define now.

Being in the wilderness 40 years gave them little to stand for or talk about, or even an ability to define themselves as anything other than not those guys.

Which isn't all bad. It has allowed the "left" to review and tighten up some things. But now both parties are so eager to adopt each other and be indistinguishable, it's kind of pointless except in the dirty details nobody bothers with.

Not sure why it's so difficult to define the right. Ideologically, they're pretty simple with the banner of all things "duh." We stand for America, Americans and things that are good.
I guess I can see why that's hard to define after all. The left is actually more complicated than you've made out I believe...and that's exactly why modern sound byte campaigning does not favor them as well.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
For a good vampire story, read the life and times of Dick Cheney, and if you really want to spook yourself read "the family" an account of the Bush family. ** skin crawls**


Perhaps you missed the "But seriously..." that followed that quote.

Majic:

I'd seriously be looking into the measure of error in the Republican Party. As a former Gop guy, I simply got sick of their practice.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Sorry about the left or right thing I have trouble differentiating them, to me a person that spend liberally and goes to war with no regard of human life is for me, and in my view a liberal.

But I know I am mistaken but because I don't know how to apply that left or right I see things in my own way



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Is it just me, or are the partisan election politics so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

It seems palpable around here even after the election. This anger on all fronts is getting a bit ridiculous.

I think a blanket statement about either side is really self-defeating.

But carry on...



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Is it just me, or are the partisan election politics so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

It seems palpable around here even after the election. This anger on all fronts is getting a bit ridiculous.

I think a blanket statement about either side is really self-defeating.

But carry on...


Nope, it's not just you. The machine has polarize the populous to hate the other, has nothing to do with policy or issues anymore.

My reply may have been too curt. I was agreeing with you KJ. Others are seeing it as well.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Nope, it's not just you. The machine has polarize the populous to hate the other, has nothing to do with policy or issues anymore.

My reply may have been too curt. I was agreeing with you KJ. Others are seeing it as well.



Ok, good to know. As far as the Machine goes, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that in America, we refine everything to the point of maximum effectiveness.

Cigarettes, movies, focus groups, surveys, gambling, product recognition (McDonald’s, Coke, etc). Hell, McDonald’s is even in my Microsoft Word dictionary.

Should it not be boiled down to the most rudimentary parts and compressed into sound bits?

Sure, that is what Election 2004 was all about. This is the reason for the humorousness at those bitching about the loss, and the win without merit. Gloating is best done when the impact or importance is great.

Can we please all just get back on track to finding out what really ails America?

Note: It's the system.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
For example, consider cuba. Those such as the Castro brothers, Guevara and others incited the revolution in the face of mounting fascism from batista's government. Basic services and amentities were taken out of the market and made public. The economic system was made much more democratic through worker-elected representatives. Education and healthcare were made free to all. Cuba is on the up and up, despite the horrors it has faced from the imperialist west.

Cuba is on the up and up? So, any Cuban citizen can travel out of Cuba at will, can they? In other words, Castro does not hold them there as virtual prisoners?

If you accept a country that will not allow it's citizens to LEAVE as progressive, then I would like to hear your definition of repression.




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Let's face it, Democrats rely on poor, so obviously they want the poor to remain that way. You night say "poor people vote Republican too", but not all poor people want to stay that way, and they look to the Republican party to help them out of their poverty. Democrat "poor" basically have given up and look to Democrats to sustain their meager existence. Then they want to blame "rich" people, because as everyone knows personnal responsibility is just not tolerated in the Democrat Party.

Example: John F'n Kerry... It wasn't my fault I lost.
Example: We didn't lose the election Bush stole it.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
i'm a lefty. i advocate poverty. poverty for EVERYONE! yay! that's what i'm all about. you poor rich people are the most impoverished souls on the planet.
i cried(with spiritual joy) watching a documentary where an afghani man is good-naturedly laughing at where his house USED to be(before it was bombed into a crater). now THAT guy was RICH!



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Let's face it, Democrats rely on poor, so obviously they want the poor to remain that way. You night say "poor people vote Republican too", but not all poor people want to stay that way, and they look to the Republican party to help them out of their poverty. Democrat "poor" basically have given up and look to Democrats to sustain their meager existence. Then they want to blame "rich" people, because as everyone knows personnal responsibility is just not tolerated in the Democrat Party.

Example: John F'n Kerry... It wasn't my fault I lost.
Example: We didn't lose the election Bush stole it.



My god, you need to research on the poverty in our country since Mr. Bush is in power poverty leves has increased so go get the US census bureau, and get the facts.

It seems that republicans wants to make more people fall in the poverties leves after all.

The official poverty rate rose, from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number in poverty increased also, by 1.3 million people, to 35.9 million in 2003. 2

In 2003, the average poverty threshold for a family of four was $18,810; for a family of three,$14,680.




♦ The poverty rates for people 18 to 64 and those 65 and older remained unchanged, but the poverty rate for children rose from 16.7 percent in 2002 to 17.6 percent in 2003.

Seem that making children be born and raised in poverty ensures control of the population in the future.

Sad that our childrens are the ones sufering with this problem.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join