Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

Yes, it is. It doesn't say they're against welfare anywhere, but rather provides their justification for supporting welfare.

The Rep's response to welfare amounts to:
1.) Move more people off welfare and into jobs (the ultimate goal of it all, in theory), by restricting welfare and helping them find jobs.
2.) Promote faith-based welfare programs to equal status with secular ones. For your info, every church I know of has some kind of welfare program, be it a soup kitchen, a homeless shelter, drug recovery programs, or other.
3.) Cut taxes for the poor who pay taxes.
Those were the 3 major titles for that link. The fourth was basically a re-iteration and reinforcement of #2.

... Why on earth should the Dems have a definition of welfare 'specific to them'? If you think it's justified to have this, this may explain why you and I disagree so much. I'm trying to hold both parties to the same standard and compare their behaviors. You're trying to hold them up to different standards and saying that they behave the same because they both meet your standards for them.

Then how about you prove it? I've quoted myself when you wrongfully accused me of saying things. Care to return the favor?
Oh, but looking through your posts, you were right. You also defined welfare as a singular US government program that saw major reform under the Clinton Administration. So, either it's corporate welfare, the general wellbeing of all humankind, or something that only the US can do by definition. You also mentioned 'welfare for the rich', but I don't think you ever defined it.

At one point you did say:

which pretty well matches my definition, but then you pretty much ignored that definition by 'seeking to expand it' into something else completely. Tell me, why did you feel the need to 'expand' it, to redefine the term? The only thing I can see is that the definition you started with didn't match your preconception of 'corporate welfare' as welfare.

So now you're admitting to reading partisan hackery into my posts? Are you implying that I have some sort of unconscious partisan hackery that's secretly influencing my position?

Ok, if we take this as a given (which I don't, but it's not the topic), that's still no counter to my original point that the Dems support welfare (gov't aid to the poor) and are called Marxist (by those who don't know) because of it.

 

Yes, by helping people work and keep their jobs. Some "welfare."

That IS a welfare program since Bush paid for some of it with federal funds. But you didn't know that, did you?

How about Bush's and the Reps expansion of Medicare? IS that welfare? I noticed you left that out. Really, you continue to prove that you have no command of the facts.

Because you made it specific to them in your post. Stop pretending that you were holding them to the same standard - I may hurt myself from laughing so hard.

I thought you would really find SOMETHING, but then you are really too lazy to bother. First, the welfare reform you are carping about was signed into law by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who vowed it would end welfare as we know it. This is what I am saying about the "New Democrats," but you are probably not familiar with the term. The fact that you ignored that BC signed the welfare reform act proves just what a hack you are. Need more?

How about another large welfare program, SCHIP? Ever heard of it? It was passed by a Republican Congress in 1997, and it was championed by Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, AND Republican Orrin Hatch. This is what I mean about how both parties contribute to welfare. SCHIP, IMO, like the welfare reform act was good policy, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president. Bush would not allow its expansion, but Obama did.

These are specific government programs that prove that both parties promote welfare to a greater or lesser extent. You didn't bother with any real legislation, because you knew nothing about it. But then you may deny any of this is "welfare" and just a "fallacy," since it doesn't fit the mythological reality you have created within your own mind. But don't bother with the specific facts at all costs.

 

Hmm, that's a good point. I honestly hadn't thought of that, but the Reps do seem to support gov't backing of private charities, so I suppose that's a kind of indirect welfare. Maybe I should have qualified my statement with 'direct welfare'. Practiacally speaking, it may not make much difference (depending on how effective the private programs are), but the perception is different enough that I think my initial point survives it. Maybe. I'll have to think about that.

You mean this?

Right, a prelude to dismantaling Medicare (an accusation that stuck around, I'd remind you) and a givaway to drug makers.

Could you quote where I made it specific to them? I don't remember doing this. You may be reading something in that isn't there again.

Chandos, I'd remind you of the same thing I reminded Ragusa of, that personal attacks are against the rules. Calm down already.

Oh, I never ignored it. Welfare as it was was a political hot-potato, though. Clinton couldn't possibly have gotten away with not signing it. Look here for more info. The Dems had years in which to reform Welfare their way, as Clinton had promised in his '92 campaign, but they didn't. Finally, the Reps took the initiative and did it for them. Clinton did veto it, twice, but they kept coming back. Finally, to get something through, they made a few changes, and Clinton made a few acquiesces. For more, read this:

Note the trend: Republicans want to cut it smaller, cut off more people, while the Dems want to keep it larger, keep it more inclusive.

Again, you aren't telling the whole story. Look here for more. Like I said, politics isn't as simple as you present it. Just because a Republican congress passed welfare reform doesn't mean the Reps like welfare. Just because a Dem president signed it doesn't mean he liked it. And most of all, these two issues prove that who controls congress (in numbers) doesn't actually control congress, or the White House. In the first case, the Dems were split about restricting welfare, while the Reps were unified behind it. The Dem president vetoed the bill twice, but the Reps managed to get it through anyway, with a little comprimize. With SCHIP, the roles are a little reversed, with the Reps being split about expanding the program, while the Dems are unified behind it. Here, the bill is again vetoed by Bush, but it eventually get's through under Obama. You should be noticing a pattern here. It's what I've suggested from the beginning. That the Dems support welfare (and even when Welfare is a dead duck, they're split on restricting it) and the Reps are against it (and even when everyone knows it's needed, they're split on expanding it).

Yes, and it's the 'greater' or 'lesser' extent that you seem to be ignoring. Mind you, I never said the Reps wanted to end all welfare of all forms in all cases, nor that the Dems supported it all in all cases, just that the Dems have been the champions of it (and only reluctantly acted to restrict it) while the Reps have acted to restrict it (and only reluctantly expanded it). Your own cases provide perfect evidence of this.

 

Of course, YOU think it does. Now we are talking about "perception?" Keep on doing that tap dance, NOG.

Good you found it. I hope it was intructive for you.

Those ARE CRITICS of the program. Note that the program never dismantled anything. Did you know that the plan is still working? You thought the program had been "dismantled?" Again, your ignorance on this subject is quite stunning.

And of course it is "corporate welfare" as well. Does that surprise you? Much like the food stamp program, which is welfare, and that also provides income for farmers, food processors and grocery stores.

Stop playing games.

While you are at it, remind yourself of it. And you are not a moderator on this board, so you don't need to remind other members of anything when you engage in enough of it yourself. If you have a complaint, file it properly with a real moderator on this board and stop your little snide and dishonest attacks. Or better yet, send me a PM and I will tell you what I really think of you and your "methods." But your laziness is why I have little respect for your opinions on this board, lately

 

Chandos, my entire point has always been about perception. Thanks for keeping up. Remember, I'm arguing that Democratic party policy is being mistakenly percieved as communism. So, of course, how it's percieved matters greatly.

Again, I'm looking to perception and intent. The (Dem) critics of the program didn't criticize it for being too extravagant or costly, but rather for being too much of an attack on the existing program. The Dem fear here, their rallying cry to oppose it (weak as it was) was:
1.) Corporate welfare
2.) An attack on Medicare.
Those are the two things I've been saying the Dems opposed and the Reps supported all along.

I'm not, but apparently you are. So now you're not expected to back up your ridiculous accusations with facts? Get real.

 

I really don't know that this has to do with anything, unless, it is now all about "perception." As I pointed out, the program in question is just fine and working, so it was never an "attack on Medicare." If it is an attack on Medicare, show me.

But as it is, it is a Republican welfare program. That was my point.

I like how you keep changing what your point is really about. What is it THIS post?

We have just spent four pages arguing if it is Dems, or Republicans, or both that support welfare policy.

This is what you said:

You made that specfic to Dems. And now you are saying that it is "all about perception?" At this point, there is no point, it seems.

 

Four very long pages, I might add.

My take on it is this -- when someone right leaning hears the word "welfare", he sees money going from hardworking people going to lazy people who do not work. When left leaner hears the word, he sees money going from the able bodied going to help those who for no fault of their own cannot work. Both have some validity, in that you cannot tell me that there are no welfare bums out there working the system. But not everyone on welfare is a bum.

Marx said "let the workers of the world, unite!" or some such -- I find it interesting that he didn't say "poor people of the world, unite!" -- IMHO, it never seemed that Marx gave a damn about the poor in general, only about the people who were working their butts off and because of the unfair capitalist system were still poor. If you were an able bodied human who was always weaselling out of work, I would imagine that Marx would have advocated the workers punish or otherwise 'deal with' that lazy fellow.

Now, when it comes to "corporate welfare", we have a real conundrum -- in classic laissez faire economics, businesses that are poorly run will fail, and that's the way it goes -- the invisible hand has extended its middle finger to that company, as it were. But if they go under, the innocent workers get screwed. To people on both sides of the aisle, if we save the cheerleader, we save the world -- wait, no, I mean if we save the corporation, we save the little guy workers. In theory, that's fine, but anyone with a sense of justice wonders how we can save the workers and at the same time reward the management fat cats for failure. Especially with the fat cats giving themselves bonuses with taxpayer money. I don't think the Republicans liked that any better than the Democrats.

 

Chandos, in my very first post I said:

But it's not a specific definition of welfare. My post was specific to the Dems because they fit the general definition and they were the topic of the moment.


LKD, the problem with seperating the poor from the workers in Marxism is that, when he wrote his work, the two were the same. Anyone who had to work for a living was poor, and most anyone who was poor either worked for aliving or died. There may have been a few people who lived on the charity of others, especially the Church, but not many. He never thought a large middle-class society like America created would last, much less prosper.

 

That's a given. NOG, that has already been pointed out in this thread. My point is that when right wingers use the term "Marxist" to label some loser bleeding heart who advocates giving mansions* to people who refuse to work, they are seriously misreading Marx and putting words into his mouth, to use a common phrase. Middle class or not, Marx would never have advocated supporting lazy freeloading.

*see other thread.

 

I said you made welfare specific to Democrats. And the argument is that "welfare is not specific to Democrats." Why? Because both parties engage in some "type of welfare" so to make welfare specific to Democrats is not a valid point. It is ignorant to do so. But you say you never meant that point yourself, only that it was "a matter of perception." Fine. If some ignorant people want to believe that only Democrats engage in welfare, let them. The world is full of know-nothings and that can't be helped.

 

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by 'making welfare specific to Democrats.' I thought you were accusing me of re-writing my definition so that it was specific to the Dems.

What you define as 'welfare' and how drastically changes this analysis, though. My argument, at it's core, was that the Dems engage in behavior that some mistake as communism. If the 'welfare' that the Reps engage in looks completely different, even if it really is something that could be called 'welfare', then my logic is valid. The argument that, because some people call the actions of both 'welfare', even though they're using two different definitions of 'welfare' to do so, the Dems can't be singled out for their actions, is fallacious.

 

I don't think they believe that at all, which is the point that Aldeth and I discussed at the opening of the thread and which was the point of the thread itself. One would have to be a complete idiot or insane to believe that Dems are really "Communists." YOU really believe people mistake Dems for communists, because of "welfare?" It's all political rhetoric, and stupid rhetoric at that. It's like when we lefties call the right-wing the "Reich-Wing." Have you ever been on the Democratic Underground? You would think every Republican was a graduate of the Hitler Youth. But we know that Republicans are no more Nazis than Democrats are Communists - It's just silly rhetoric to amuse ourselves at the expense of our political opponents.

Regarding welfare, which has nothing to do with my topic, you can carp about definitions all you want, and as have told you over-and-over your definition is meaningless to me, because we are talking POLITICS. No one stands up on the Senate, or House floor and says, we can't pass this legislation because an online dictionary defines this as "welfare."

 

Knowing the kinds of people that say such things, yes, I really believe they believe it. It's not due to insanity or idiocy, though, just a gross misunderstanding of what communism actually is. I guess that's stupidity (refusing to learn) rather than idiocy (incapable of learning).

No, but when they talk about "welfare reform", they're talking about the kind of 'welfare' that Merriam-Webster define.

 

No, they are not. They are referring to a specific government program here in the United States, not all the welfare programs on planet earth.

 

Actually, they talk about a lot more than just one program when they talk about 'welfare'. Look here.

Sure, AFDC/TANF are the most common topics of welfare, but HUD, food stamps, Medicaid, and SSI all come up as well. Collectively, they are all welfare.

 

What is your point? We already agreed that most of the above is welfare on this thread. Those are specfic government programs that I would agree are welfare. You don't remember that we discussed that food stamps are welfare and how some Republicans were promoting it? What is this supposed to prove?

In any event, I'm not sure who these jokers are, but if they believe that SSI is welfare --- a program that IS NOT welfare -- and that people pay into all their lives, they have a meaning I could not recognize anyway. In the past you have called SSI a "pyramid scheme," or whatever it was last time around. We can have that debate all over again if you choose; I couldn't care less. In fact, if you want to believe that SSI is welfare or a pyramid scheme, or whatever, post a new thread on the topic, since this one is definately NOT about SSI.

 

I'm sorry, I took this:

to mean you were going back to your 'Welfare is one single program in the US government that was reformed under Clinton' bit.

SSI isn't Social Security, Chandos. If you had read the link, they have a whole section on the difference between the two.

 

NOG - Ok, my apologies. I didn't read the link on SSI because I had already agreed with you on the other programs being welfare. SSI, to many people, not just me, means Social Security Insurance.

About the specific welfare program - I was not referencing a specific program, but saying that Congress only deals with specific programs and not a general definition of the term as used in the MWD definition in the quote. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

 

So, now that I think we've gotten all of that out of the way, I still say many of the people who call the Dems 'communists' honestly mistake welfare and the possibility of a welfare state as an aspect of communism. In doing so, they're making a huge mistake, but they are responding to actual actions and proposals from the Dems, not just boogey-men. Of course, the actual politicians and educated pundits really should know better, they have no excuse, but Joe Conservative on the street probably doesn't know Communism from Socialism, Marxism, Despotism, or Fascism. He probably lumps Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin together.

 

Two points:

1. No, I don't believe hardly anyone really makes that mistake, unless they are either delusional, or just dishonest.

2. No, both parties engage in welfare, and only partisan ideologues believe that only one side or the other engages in welfare. They both do, quite plainly, as the record shows.