DescentBB

current term alone:
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/02/war-o ... art-17000/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congress-pas ... cuts#50092

http://nwlc.org/house-bill-cuts-unemplo ... -and-more/


this was pretty easy to find, Woody. Why do you deny reality, especially brain-dead obvious, in-your-face reality?

Spidey wrote:Well I’m not sure which people you are referring to, because conservatives have been developing, starting and supporting the institutions in this country that provide for the raising of children since forever.

Everything from…

Employment
Disaster relief
The Church
Recreational and social development clubs
Education
Charities
Endowments & grants
Adoption…to the most important institution of all:

The Two Parent Family

And yes…even some government supported programs such as…wait for it…Planned Parenthood, which was supported by none other than Trickey McDickey.

You missed an important one that conservatives are actually trying to curtail. The food stamp program. I guess all those poor single mothers and poor families can just go hungry since food is not a requirement for living, especially for those non-traditional single parent families. So conservatives want their ideal of 2 parent families, fine. Support free birth control so that single women don't get pregnant when they go for a romp. Remember, it takes 2 to tango too, so don't blame the women. But conservatives sure as s**t don't care about those single parent families because they don't fit their definition of a family. In fact, I see homeless mothers out on the street panhandling here in little old Corvallis. They wouldn't be able to feed their kids if it weren't for begging and the paltry food stamp program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... 2420130801

As for education, conservatives don't want to fund the public school system and they certainly don't want to fund those evil leftie universities. They think private is the way to go, even though private means "expensive". Today, after years of de-funding the university system, and I've seen it happen in Oregon since it costs far more now than when I went to state school and mostly due to cost cutting by past Republican legislatures, our kids are now being saddled from the start with massive debt they'll never be able to pay off and university presidents are resorting to all sort of private funding, which does not fill the gap either. Our student kids can't even afford rent, let along buy a house. So whenever I hear conservatives say they care about children, I guess it only applies to those who have money.

Also don't forget about health care. Conservatives don't give a rat's a$$ if poor children can't afford to be healthy. Oh, they want them to be born alright. It just that they just don't care if they can survive when they get sick, and I'm talking about both middle class and poor children. The rich have nothing to worry about in the health care department.

Yea tc, so let me tell you a little bit of history on how those great social programs actually created slums and perpetual poverty, and how social programs create the need for more and more of the same.

I’ll start right in my old neighborhood North Philly.

So back in the day there were these things known as the great southern migrations, which were enabled by the great liberal housing programs, and the unethical realtors that took advantage of them, these programs turned normal working class areas into slums.

Along with the residents also left a large number of local businesses, leaving the areas with no local employment, or tax base.

So as a result, new social programs are needed to get people to where the jobs moved to (public transportation) and as the tax base disappears so does the school funding, so again you need more social programs to get the students into better schools (busing).

All the while certain welfare programs were letting females reproduce above their means, thus causing the need for even more social programs such as food stamps, and destroying the normal two parent family along with it, causing all of the social programs needed to deal with that reality.

Slums self perpetuate because nobody with money or businesses will move in and the residents can’t afford to move out, and once started the cycle goes on forever.

Now I know somebody will come in here and tell you how all of these poor areas were really created by the economic downturns, but I know better because I lived through the actual event. Section 8 is the all powerful god of slum creation. And yes, I will admit that slums are actually created by economic conditions, but those are more recent creations, and mostly regional, but the slums I am talking about have their roots long before the economy changed in this country.

And to make the problem even worse, there weren’t really enough jobs or housing available during these migrations, so the liberals created even more social programs called public housing projects…come forward a few decades and these places are a public disgrace, and everyone is dispersed into the surrounding areas…creating even more slums. (again I have seen this in action)

And you know what, I wasn’t even going to say another word in this thread, but you and slick seem bent on spewing your hatred of conservatives, so I was…encouraged.

My post wasn’t even an attack on liberals, I was just trying to defend my personal brand of conservatism.

Spidey wrote:Yea tc, so let me tell you a little bit of history on how those great social programs actually created slums and perpetual poverty, and how social programs create the need for more and more of the same.

I’ll start right in my old neighborhood North Philly.

So back in the day there were these things known as the great southern migrations, which were enabled by the great liberal housing programs, and the unethical realtors that took advantage of them, these programs turned normal working class areas into slums.

let me give you a bit of history. Those migrations had ZERO to do with 'liberal housing programs'. The migration was due to Jim Crow laws and oppression elsewhere, and jobs up north. Now, continue.....

I was just trying to defend my personal brand of conservatism.

try to do so while stepping back and not personalizing history. You resent the changes in North Philly, which was a VERY rough, rather poor working class neighborhood when I was a kid(50s-early 60s). Hell, they had to move the Phillies to South Philly because the local gentry didn't wish to venture up to Lehigh Avenue for ballgames at Connie Mack anymore. I can remember that much.......

Note, I said “enabled by” not caused by. Also note, there was another party involved.

there's a crapload of reasons how most Eastern/Midwestern major cities got to where they got. Some political, most economic, and a bit of good old
racism, segregation and neglect tossed in.

Absolutely

I didn't say liberal policies were better Spidey. Any program that is not managed properly will invariably fail because there are always those who will abuse or steal from the system. But my point is that Republicans have actively worked against any and all liberal policies that are put in place to help the poor and the unemployed, instead of working with liberals for the common social good or even improving those programs and coming up with better solutions for that matter. The Republican solution to the poor and unemployed is always the same. Let them starve or be homeless if they can't find a damn job, so meh, out of site, out of mind. Tough luck. Liberals are guilty of creating bloated social programs that are too big, too expensive and too grand and then managing them by neglect.

I recall a big debate we had once when the Media and Democrats were claiming “Republicans were cutting social programs”.

But it turned out that the Democrats had proposed social spending increases and the Republicans reduced the amount of the increases, but it didn’t stop the “Republicans cut social programs” mantra.

My point…well at this point I don’t trust anybody anymore to tell the truth, and I’m getting too old and tired to check every claim. (or even care)

I can only defend the brand of conservatism I practice, and the politicians can go to hell.

Spidey wrote:I can only defend the brand of conservatism I practice, and the politicians can go to hell.

well, bluntly put, but sort of the whole premise of how our system works when it works properly. Everyone has their own twist on ideology, and while not going 'to hell', those people should be able to seek out candidates which hold to at least some of their tenets most of the time. Then, with compromise and consensus-building, the legislation that results is tempered, change is slow, but should reflect concerns of most of us at the end. When that breaks down, it becomes, 'to hell wth the politicians', which, while a valid sentiment, really gets the lot of us nowhere.