Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Reading Assignment: The Dependency Agenda

Posted 6 years ago on June 7, 2012, 8:19 p.m. EST by linker (-241)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


Each year, the United States spends $65,000 per poor family to “fight poverty” – in a country in which the average family income is just under $50,000. Meanwhile, most of that money goes to middle-class and upper-middle-class families, and the current U.S. poverty rate is higher than it was before the government began spending trillions of dollars on antipoverty programs.

In this eye-opening Broadside, Kevin D. Williamson uncovers the hidden politics of the welfare state and documents the historical evidence that proves that Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” was designed to do one thing: maximize the number of Americans dependent upon the government. The welfare state was never meant to eliminate privation; it was created to keep Democrats in power.

ENCOUNTER BROADSIDES: Uniting an 18th-century sense of political urgency and rhetorical wit (think The Federalist Papers, Common Sense) with 21st-century technology and channels of distribution, Encounter Broadsides offer indispensable ammunition for intelligent debate on the critical issues of our time. Written with passion by some of our most authoritative authors, Encounter Broadsides make the case for liberty and the institutions of democratic capitalism at a time when they are under siege from the resurgence of collectivist sentiment. Read them in a sitting and come away knowing the best we can hope for and the worst we must fear.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Where's thrashy??

Talk about conspiracy theorists.

Here's a whole web site full ones that actually matter.

[+] -5 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉◻◻◻▉▉◻▉▉◻◻◻▉◻▉◻▉ ▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉ ▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉▉▉◻◻◻▉ ▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻◻▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉▉▉◻▉▉ ▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻◻◻▉▉◻▉▉ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

It figures you would do the most useless thing you can think of.

Exactly 0 analysis.

[-] -1 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

Seems like a right wing conspiracy theory to me. The guy says welfare is designed to make us slaves of the government. I guess that means we should't have any social programs like welfare, education for all, healthcare for all. Let's all fight on our own to make sure the government is far far away.

I wonder if you think libraries were designed by the government to keep us busy? And that, when the government noticed we were getting smart, it created the word "nerd" and stated it wasn't cool to be a nerd. Then we fought back with "Revenge of the Nerds" the movie. And now, nerds are pretty cool. Some computer programers are even anarchists, like jart. The government is in big trouble!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

The government created the word nerd???

Do you have scientific proof of this?

In my State we have governor that claims to be one.

I have my doubts.

[-] -2 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

The word was indeed invented by the government near the beginning of the 50s. At first, the word was used to refer to shy and socially awkward types as in boys too afraid to ask girls out for a dance at the prom. Then, the idea of great intellect was added as a form of compensation for the negative aspects I just described. Sort of like we compensate the positive side of gorgeous blondes with stupidness. It's only after the movie "Revenge of the Nerds" that being a nerd became acceptable. Nowadays, being a nerd is outright cool, like being gay or a tranarchist like jart. We live in a wonderful world full of personality types and they are all welcome to the party.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

There you go with your own made up conspiracy theories.

The first documented use of the word nerd was in 1950 in the Dr. Seuss book. "If I Ran the Zoo".

[-] -3 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

Indeed it was. Just like I said, early 50s. You do know Dr. Seuss was working for various government programs at the time, right? The best way to add a word in common everyday speech is to put it in a children book that will be read by all. Remember, the government created public libraries, then realized we were too smart and decided to attack this problem with the notion of "nerds". That's why the word appeared in a book, and not on TV. The government knew the book would likely be read in the library, thus creating an immediate impression on the read. "I'm in a library! OMG - I'm a nerd!". Luckily, "Revenge of the Nerds" saved the day.

The government countered real hard in the 90s. It decided to dumb us down with shows like Jerry Springer. Luckily, we decided to counter back with "intellectual" humor found in Seinfeld and the Simpsons.

As a result of all this, Americans are at once smart and dumb. It's really strange.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

And you don't think what you just said is a conspiracy theory?

Dr. Seuss led to Jerry's Springer and Sienfeld?

Oh such a tangled web you've woven.

[+] -5 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

I thought it was pretty obvious I was being ironic. I guess I have to spoon feed you everything.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

The only irony, is the conspiracy theory of YOU.

It's getting pretty lame too.

[-] -3 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

If it's lame, why do you keep replying to my comments? You're one of my most fervent followers.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I immensely enjoy pointing out the high level of bullshit you are capable of perpetrating.........:)

Pointing out the entire conspiracy theory of YOU!

All the while you offer so little in the way of insight.

[-] -3 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

To get back to the original discussion, so you believe we should get ride of social programs like welfare because they make us slaves of the government? I'm surprised you agree with this conspiracy theory, but yeah, please explain.

BTW - read the comments around. You're one of the only ones taking this right wing garbage seriously. Ya, I know, that's an argumentum ad populum, just saying.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Who said I agreed?

Another one of your theories?

The "right wing": garbage I take seriously is stuff like ALEC.

A conspiracy that's NOT a theory.

You know. the kind of thing you ignore and try to bury with your attacks on renneye.

[-] -2 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

Renneye is a wacko who posts stuff about satanic baby eating rituals, and mind controlled orphaned girls. She deserves to be attacked!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

And you're twice the wacko for obsessing over her.

All the while providing your own conspiracy theories.

I don't believe either one of you, but at least she is honest in her choice of monikers.

[-] -2 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

And there you are, my most interested reader and fervent replier.

[-] 3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Stop lying.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

can you be more specific? lying about what?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I'll tell you what then, let's decentralize the welfare state, Washington can just serve as a skeleton (a small number of bureaucrats just managing block grants and light/flexible mandates). Same amount of money, or ideally, more money (after all, the American government should be serving the American people, and not its salacious appetite for hegemony). The only caveat is, we'd need a more anarchist structure at the state and local level (and more direct democracy controls over the federal government). In fact, the people should directly manage everything. Every region should have its own FCC, licensing things that serve the public good (as decided by the people, in a direct democracy forum). Likewise, if the people ran their local governments, there's no reason why we would want or need very much central government at all. If a place like NYC was ran by the people, and it got to keep more of its tax dollars, we could cooperate with neighboring cities and towns and counties (also ran by the people), and we'll build our own alternative energy system, we'll make housing, medical care, food, education, and other bare necessities, a human right.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 6 years ago

I wouldn't abolish or reduce welfare lacking a ready and better alternative but it does not "solve" poverty for anyone. There needs to be a jobs program that gets everyone capable and willing to work into the game earning a wage that at least pays the rent and necessities. There needs to be tuition free college education as there was in New York and other places in the US.

http://www.good.is/post/whatever-happened-to-when-college-was-free/ The transformation of higher education and how you can be in on it. These days, tuition at public colleges commonly rises five, seven, or even 15 percent in a single year, and students shoulder five- and six-figure debts to pay for their degrees. It’s easy to forget that it hasn’t always been this way: Many public colleges and universities were once tuition-free.

In 1847, Baruch College, now part of the City University of New York system, was founded as the Free Academy, the first free public college in the country. In 1862, the first Morrill Act established public universities through federal land grants, many states opted to charge no tuition or nominal tuition. California’s public-university system, still the largest in the nation, abolished tuition three months after it was founded in 1868, implementing instead a fee for additional services, such as health care, that at first was tiny.

The era of free tuition ended, ironically, with the student movement of the 1960s, just as campuses were getting more populous, diverse, and democratic. Ronald Reagan made the University of California a major punching bag of his 1966 campaign for governor of California, with the encouragement of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who saw campus peace activists as dangerous subversives. Upon taking office, Reagan managed to have UC president Clark Kerr fired—he had been the architect of mass higher education not just in California, but across the country—and hiked fees at the UC colleges to the approximate levels of tuition charged elsewhere.

A similar story happened in New York. In the 1960s, blacks and Latinos made up less than one-fifth of all students at CUNY schools, and most were confined to a non-baccalaureate track. The same colleges that had offered the city’s Jews and other immigrant groups important opportunities for advancement in the 1930s were frustrating the dreams of a new generation.

In the spring of 1969, students at City College staged a campus takeover, hanging a banner that proclaimed the school that had once been known as the “Harvard of the poor” to be “Harlem University.” Student activism and community support led the state Board of Higher Education to vote swiftly to open CUNY admission for the first time to all city high school graduates. However, only a few years after the college was fully integrated, in 1976, CUNY’s board voted to impose tuition for the first time. It seemed that citizens could support free education, or open education, but not both.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

nothing is free - it's just a matter of who is paying. thats the trouble with you communists - you think it's free because YOU dont have to pay - well - someone pays - and when they pay for what YOU want - it takes money away from other places. Nothing is free - it's just transferred from one group to another.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 6 years ago

The One percent get rich from the work of the 99. They pay taxes- these taxes recycle to benefits for the 99. The One percent were rich and still are rich. Society benefits.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

Sick 'em thrashy. I'm pretty sure the scientific method was abandoned here in lieu of the bullshit method.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

lol. I second that motion.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

I'm getting my popcorn ready.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Popcorn - check! Red Twizzlers anyone?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

The authors of this book should be on America's Got Talent. It takes a lot of talent to think up this much bullshit

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Hmmm. Is it a million dollar act? I don't know if this act should go on to Vegas. Is it on the same level as the guy busting his balls with heavy objects? I'm not sure. It's hard to say.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

I think Howie would give them a shot. He likes the weird acts.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Given that the ball buster dude made it to the next round, anything is possible. They don't call this the land of opportunity for nothing.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

It is a free country full of opportunities indeed. Everyone and their granny is allowed to think up whatever bullshit they please and put it in a book.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

can you be more specific. what specifically is bullshit?

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

generally all of it.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

and that gets you off the hook - no debate because you avoid actual content. typical - how do you know if you didnt even read it?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

How do I know it is pretty much bullshit without reading it? The same way I separate junk mail from good mail. There are more important things to debate, this nonsense just needs to be trashed for what it is - junk.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

head in the sand drone - good luck

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 6 years ago

You do make a good point that throwing money at poverty doesn't solve the problem (it can help, you know make sure a few more people than before have food on the table, but that doesn't fix the problem and there I agree with you), You also imply that greater self sufficiency among people and smaller social organizations will go a long way toward solving our problems, and I think that you are also getting at something very important there as well.

But then you go off into conspiratorial BS. Not to mention continued support of many of the other systems that got us into the mess we face. Capitalism can be good, if it encourages investment in the resilience rather than purely the efficiency of an economy.

Thinking about the colonial period though does yield a gem. Colonies for a time printed their own money, systemically different from that of Great Britain's monopoly of usury backed pounds. But without democratic forms of money, capitalism will not benefit the 99%. In the right monetary paradigm (or nest of paradigms) however, it would not even need Adam Smith's moral sentiments to guide it.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

did you read the book ?

[-] 3 points by JoeW (109) 6 years ago

I have books that concern themselves with solutions rather than conspiracies on my to read list this summer.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

so you didn't read the book. commenting on something you know nothing about. typical

[-] 3 points by JoeW (109) 6 years ago

When it cites conspiracy as a central theme, it is usually not worth reading about the events in that context.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 6 years ago

what makes it a conspiracy "theory" ?

[+] -4 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

▉▉▉▉▉▉▉◻▉▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉◻▉◻◻▉▉◻◻◻▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉◻▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉◻▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉◻▉▉◻▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉◻▉▉◻▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉▉▉▉▉ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
▉▉▉▉◻◻◻▉▉◻▉◻▉◻◻◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉◻▉▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉◻▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉◻◻◻▉▉◻◻◻▉◻▉▉▉◻▉◻◻◻▉◻◻◻▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

[+] -7 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

Excellent post,the truth hurts,....if your a Leftist,wealth redistribution loving anti-American.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

Tr@shy : D'you mean "the truth" as defined by devious & duplicitous ; reactionary & retarded - Right-Wing Trolls like yourself - on tendentious, specious & mendacious threads & forum posts like this ?!!!

So much for your previously stated "I'm a socialist" or even any pretence of being any sort of progressive or liberal because mendacity & manipulation comes as naturally to you as drinking water doesn't it ?!!

Obtuse and abrasive, your malign multi-monikered 'work' will continue for a while yet, as the number of your 'log-in personas' now edges towards 50 ! Finally, you can absolutely rest assured that I'll chew you up and spit out the bits on your recent thread under your 'treasure moniker, in due course and soon !

temet nosce ...

[-] 0 points by treasure (-81) 6 years ago

Actually, that's not me. Seriously.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

Its not "actually" who ?! Who are you again ?!! D'you even know any more ?!!! temet nosce ...

[+] -4 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

You sir are a paranoid schizophrenic.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

@ "TrashBucket" : Research - "Projection & Transference" et nosce te ipsum ...

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

How come you always have a mouth full of nothing to say?

You need to economize, compartmentalize and down size your verbal masturbation and diatribes. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and you should apply that to all your posts.

By the way,this "Trashy" person you keep railing against (and accusing everybody of being)? I've read a few of his posts and they seem to be very reasonable,intelligent and completely the opposite of what you are portraying him to be.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

Tr@shy ! : LOLOLOL !! re. "By the way, this "Trashy" ... I've read a few of his posts and they seem to be very reasonable (&) intelligent" ....... & re. "Brevity" ... ok then, how about you just .. 'STFU' !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

I was just trying to give you some constructive input. You obviously are very intelligent and well informed,......and there'in lies the rub.

Why are you a Leftist? Someone with as much "on the ball" as you,... should be a full on Conservative. Maybe I give you too much credit but I believe the more intelligent a person the more likely they will see through the Leftist propaganda and bullshit that permeates this site.

Oh well,take it easy.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago


vale ...

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

Ah,you have finally taken somebody's advice. Look forward to many more exciting and brief communications.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

"I believe the more intelligent a person the more likely they will see through the Leftist propaganda and bullshit that permeates this site." - ergo, you are an 'Anti-OWS TROLL' !!!

ipse dixit ...

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

Not nearly as brief as I'd hoped nor as congenial. OWS is non-political,......what's your point?

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

My point ?! You = (x) !! QED !!!

WTF is "non-political" ?! LOLOL !!

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago


May the light of truth guide you through the darkness.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

Yes and may it guide me far from the likes of you + your link was singularly useless !

Further, are YOU "non political" ? eg. "[+] -5 points by shadzworth (-10) 14 hours ago : Excellent post, the truth hurts,....if your a Leftist,wealth redistribution loving anti-American." from this very thread ! Thus, "Do as you would have done unto you" OR 'Inveterate Hypocrite' ?!!

Re. your final question below and encore - my point ?! You = (x) !! Q. E. D. !!!

"OWS is non-political" = No Party Affiliation to Democraps or Republicunts !!!

fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by shadzworth (-394) 6 years ago

That does not negate the statement:

"Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions."

OWS is non-political.

Again what is your point?

[-] 2 points by JoeW (109) 6 years ago

Kind of like the wealth of the many becomes the wealth of the few? Redistribution works both ways.