Entitlement mentality Thanks Obama / Sharpton and the Left.

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character
By Dennis Prager
7/19/2011

While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.

The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.

2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.

3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.

4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.

5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement.

6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.

7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.

8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.

And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.

9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.

10. The leftist (SET ITAL) weltanschauung (END ITAL) sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

The Anti-Democrat bear illustrates common claims made by a segment of Tea Party "Activists."
Not all members but some.

There is no such distinction made in this vid (then again they're furry critters).

It's those individuals who are the focus of this video because it's those Tea Party Members who claim that illegal aliens and the poor make government too big.

Illegals cost all legal Americans billions of dollars in fraud, violent crime and hospital visits. There's no disputing it. The entitlement mentality is what makes government too big, and that the natural tendency of all governments is to grow bigger and encroach on liberty and privatized wealth (their only source of revenue).

Will some unscrupulous individuals use this point to make broad generalizations about all Neo Cons/Tea Party Members/Libertarians? Sure.

If it really were a few it would be manageable, but it isn't. It's the entire libmedia (all but Fox) that abandoned all pretense of objectivity during the 2008 election of the false messiah. They have tried (and failed) to demonize the Tea Party.

Tho you yourself seem even more desperate for attempting to delegitimize an entire ideology by claiming that factors like race or sex or age or income level are non-issues.

Where the argument falls apart over all the factors you mention: Asians. Asian minorities came to America with nothing and endured racism, yet now Asians earn higher grades and make more money than Whites.

We're entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, and the facts of the last two years shows that the scamulus was a failure, unemployment remains high, obamacare has increased health care costs and will continue to do so until it's stopped and weak foreign policy encourages America's enemies.


p.s. - what's the difference between Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush

On the surface you can argue they're all the same, but they aren't. For example, while Bush failed to enforce immigration laws and foolishly passively accepted a plan for scamnesty, Obama and Friends are actively trying to give illegals path to voting for taxocrats citizenship.

The real fun begins after November 2nd. If newly-elected republicans think they're going to return to business as usual and vote along with taxocrats to avoid conflict, they too will be targeted and removed during the next election cycle. The Tea Party means what it says, tho the left wants to rewrite its script. Nothing doing.

She needs to get legal when she turns 18.

Fucking entitlement mentality. What about all those immigrants who are still awaiting legality? What does giving her public loans, say to them?

Defense spending is nearly half of all discretionary spending.

:eyeroll: People who have screwed up often try to move the rhetorical goalpost and hope that everyone just gives them a pass. That doesn't fly with Winstonfield Q. Pennypacker. And so it is with the attempt to arbitrarily dump defense into a wholly rhetorical 'discretionary' category. Defense is the only spending the constitution specifically mandates to the federal government. Putting it into 'discretionary' and putting social programs into 'mandatory' is a leftist political trick that only fools the stupid. Federal Budget: social spending outstrips defense spending 4 to 1. Facts For The Win.

I don't think that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included in the budget:

They are. "War on terror" = Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment - these are the things you would do away with in order to improve the world?

Yes. That money would instead stay with people and businesses. The people would use the money to generate wealth, create jobs, and increase prosperity. A free population donates to the poor, gives to charity, and sponsors volunteerism independant of government involvement. Social issues are solved at the individual level by moral people who creatively use their own wealth. Social isues are perpetuated by the entitlement mentality generated by subsistence checks from budget obsessed bureaucracies. The only government involvement in social issues should be confined to municipal and state programs that are voted on by local communities. This is the philosophical divide between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives trust in freedom. Progressives fear it.

It would put a few more dollars in your pocket, that's all, and it would make life drastically worse for millions of people, including yourself, in a very short period of time.

I reject your progressive opinion. I trust that freedom is the answer - not government oppression. More dollars in everyone's pocket will make life better for millions of people - including yourself - in a very short time.

Raise taxes on the rich, cut military spending - it's a winning combination.

Lower taxes on everybody - including the rich - and cut government spending across the board. It's a winning combination. Works every time it is tried.

i just downvoted my first qm comment.
(i think, i maybe proven wrong, but i dont REMEMBER voting another one down)

No, there have to be others. I'm pretty sure you hated me when you first started commenting.

taking care of eachother as a national ideal is not the same thing as "celebrating" being downtrodden. i suppose you celebrate the kind of greed which creates this human refuse. with compassion, we all grow stronger.

im confused as to your idea of morality.

Since you have firsthand experience in these matters, I have to wonder why you think "greed" is the cause of homelessness. What about mental illness, drug addiction, abusive homes, etc?

Treating homelessness is a logistical nightmare. Half of the money set aside for food stamps goes UNspent, and even if you could round up the homeless to feed them, the ACLU would sue any organization that "violated the rights" of the homeless by putting the mentally ill in an institution.

As in all things, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.



I was orig. addressing the other side of enoch's quote:

"A measure of a society can be made on how it treats its elderly, children and weakest members"

Years ago I read a similar sentiment painted on a wall in Berkeley, CA...

The area of Berkeley I visited had a university campus, with tuition costs of 50K per annum, surrounded by blocks of expensive businesses whose walkways were crowded with young, healthy, able-bodied bums; what they lacked in money they made up for in self-righteousness.

They demanded money because, hey, you were working weren't you? You could afford it!

When hobos were roaming the country in the 1930s, they always offered to work for food or other items. Now there's an entitlement mentality, part of which includes blaming society for self-inflicted wounds.

What about the government/society that celebrates victimhood, creates dependency and makes people weaker?

To answer my own question, last year Florida taxpayers spent 100 million in "free" medical care for illegal aliens, Texas taxpayers spent 250 million, and California? One Billion dollars.

Do you think that one billion spent on illegal invaders might have helped these homeless people instead?

What about the government/society that celebrates victimhood, creates dependency and makes people weaker?

Bold words for someone who frequently flaunts his own "victimhood."

My "consumer complaints" involve the governmental destruction of natural rights that exist no matter who's in charge: free speech, a right to self-defense (firearms) and a right to keep most of what is earned (labor).

These same rights are also your rights, so my arguments are also on your behalf.

Do not confuse enumerated rights with fake utopian rights like "free" health care, housing, transportation, jobs, etc.

Admit it. You depend on the poor. Without them, who would you kick?

I demand no more of "the poor" than anyone else: obey laws, avoid self-destructive behavior, maximize what abilities you have and strive to better yourself. Be willing to seek help but don't expect a handout, or the government to forcibly take from others on your behalf.

You underestimate the value of human life, and overestimate how very little it takes to actually improve these people's lives.

A good guess, but wrong. Allow me to risk being wrong and ask: doesn't a liberal underestimate the value of human life when the humans in question are wealthy? Do they not assume that all wealthy (or even middle class) were born into privilege and never worked a day for what they have? And do not liberals also assume that these wealthy deserve injustice because "they can afford it"?

Doesn't the liberal underestimate the capacity of people to take care of themselves?

With the welfare state comes the entitlement mentality, which is bottomless, while the resources available are not.

Remember how Reagan took an axe to mental health care? This is the end result.

Contrary to popular belief, there were homeless people before Reagan. The homeless issue is decidedly more complex than blaming any one factor, philosophy or person.

If any group was enslaved as children and brought up to obey their
masters, it's Christian Neo-Conservative "Moral Majority" Republicans.

There are more people running around now with no morals, values or ethics and little understanding of basic human nature and history. These weasels and wastrels with the entitlement mentality far outnumber members of the so-called Religious Right. What is a "neo-conservative", really? A left-wing hippie who for some reason is strong on national defense. They deserve a better, more precise name.

Especially anybody who would vote for Bush, and still hold him in high regard after seven years of disgraceful pandering to corporate interests. I would never accuse any follower of the Bush doctrine of having good taste.

Consider the idea that you've been programmed by a lying, deeply-in-denial left-wing media circus as well as a government "education" that celebrates the collective over the individual. I'm not blinded by hatred of Bush so I can reasonably explain where he is lacking.

Olbermann's job is to parrot what his stable of "comedy" writers makes up every day. Like Al Franken, he somehow eats mediocre yet craps the occasional gold coin. I suspect many on the left are embarrassed by him, just like they are of Franken.

What is the point of even mentioning the Congressional rating? You may as well say, "Bush may have a poor approval rating, but so did King Louis the XVI." Declaring the shit of another leader smelly doesn't make Bush's shit smell any better.

Congress is the real power, as they hold the purse strings. The joke is on the idiot "protest voter" conservatives who put the Donkey in the driver's seat 2 years ago. Now we all must sip a mug of Fail, waiting for the chance to clean house again via elections.