Leftists like to characterize themselves as the “compassionate party”. They care about the poor, they care about women’s reproductive rights, they care about income inequality, they care about fairness… Or do they??

The left believes government should solve all “problems”. They look for problems to solve, even when the problem is best solved locally, or not at all. Face it, it isn’t possible to protect people from every possible problem. In a free society, people take chances just getting out of bed. Freedom means you are free to succeed… Or to fail. Failure is a learning experience, not something to be protected from. Many people fail, often more than once, before they finally succeed. We learn from failure, and try again.

Does the Left really care about the poor? Apparently, they care so much, they have created millions more of them. They told women that as long as they didn’t have a husband or a job, the government would take care of them. What you pay for, you get more of… So we got millions more single mothers. The “War on Poverty” hasn’t reduced the percentage of poor at all, but it has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars, and trapped millions in generational poverty. It has created huge bureaucracies that suck up seventy-four cents of every welfare dollar. After 50 years of welfare, do we have less poverty?

Studies have shown that leftists are the least charitable of people. They think government should take care of the poor. They quote the Bible to justify constantly increasing taxes on the producers to support the parasites. But the Bible intended charity to be personal. Conservatives give much more to charities in both time and money than leftists do. We believe in taking care of our own. Charity used to be handled by churches and local communities who knew the people that truly needed help, and could see the results of their efforts.

The left accuses Conservatives of waging a “War on Women”. Really? In what way? Have women not had “reproductive rights” until now? Have they not had access to birth control? All my adult life I have had access to whatever type of birth control I chose, and I never worried about how to pay for it. It’s not that expensive, and if it is for some, there are programs that supply it for free. But, according to the leftists, unless the government (which is you, the taxpayer) pays for all forms of birth control, women won’t have access to it. Conservatives don’t want to deny women access to birth control, we just don’t see why we should pay for it.

Unlike the left, Conservatives don’t think of women as helpless creatures who need taking care of. Women have been taking care of their own needs for a very long time. Pioneer women gave birth in log cabins, or wagon trains, or ships coming across the ocean. Unlike Miss Fluke, who was smart enough to get into Georgetown University, but not smart enough to figure out how to pay for birth control pills (which are available at Walmart for $9.00 a month.) I don’t know any women who were unable to take care of their own reproductive needs. Most of us work full time while raising children, taking care of our homes, and looking damn good. We know how to get birth control.

Insurance is designed to protect you from the unknown. The left doesn’t seem to understand that. Insurance companies are betting nothing will happen to you, and you are betting that something will. Birth control, abortion, gender reassignment, substance abuse treatment, etc. are all personal choices, not unforeseen accidents. Covering these things isn’t insurance, it’s welfare. It’s also not economically possible.

How about “income inequality”? Yes, there is income inequality… And there should be. Not all jobs are equal. Businesses are in business to make a profit, not to guarantee people high-paying jobs. I don’t believe there should be a minimum wage. If an employer can’t find anyone to work for what he is offering, he will increase the wages offered until he can. That is supply and demand. Entry-level jobs require no skills. They are for people just entering the labor force, like teenagers. If people want to earn more than minimum wage, they need to make themselves more valuable. Entry level jobs aren’t meant to “support a family”. Leftists don’t seem to care that every time they increase the minimum wage, they cause less employment. While claiming to champion the “worker”, they price large percentages of workers out of the market.

Recently, President Obama claimed women only made seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man made. He is, of course, misrepresenting the truth. Many women choose jobs that take them away from family as little as possible. If they have children, they generally don’t choose jobs that require a lot of travel or danger. Many women choose jobs like teaching, nursing, or office work. Women who choose careers that compete with men often make more than men. It’s a non-issue that has, once again, been used by the left to be divisive. To cause discontent and envy.

And what is “fair”? Taking more and more from people who earned what they have, to give to people who haven’t? How is that “fair”? Why should anyone be responsible for other people’s bad choices? Lefties like to blame circumstances for people living in poverty, but for the most part, people are living in poverty because of the choices they make. It has been my observation that people determined to succeed, do. We all can name famous people, like Dr. Ben Carson, who were raised in poverty but achieved great success. Conservatives want to help those truly in need…..and do. What we don’t want to do is enable people to keep making bad choices.

So, who really wears the white hats? Those who pay for and encourage bad choices, or those who believe we are not irresponsible children who need to be taken care of? Every adult with a functioning brain and body should earn what they have….or not have it.


About madderthanhell

Retired casting director. Mother of two daughters. Grandmother of twin boys and two step grandsons. Lived in California all my life. Co-organizer of two Tea Parties. Past member of Republican Central Committee.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. archienc2014 says:

    Let’s just suppose for a moment that you have lost everything…money, family, ability to work…absolutely everything…including a “functioning brain.” In your scenario, how will you survive? That’s what has happened to several thousand of our military personnel. So tell us in your own words how you would survive?

    • Of course we take care of those who truly need caring for. No one has ever said we shouldn’t. If you READ what I wrote, I said this is best done locally and personally. In fact, if you look at how the government takes care of our injured military you would see what a BAD job they are doing. More than 40 veterans died recently waiting for care. The VA is a perfect example of “single payer” system and it DOESN’T WORK! What does it take for Liberals to admit something doesn’t work?

      Americans are the most generous caring people in the world. We have never not taken care of those who are in need. That isn’t what is happening now. We are allowing people who have perfectly “functioning brains” and bodies to sit on their asses and be taken care of by people working their asses off.

      • archienc2014 says:

        You are very right! The VA is a perfect example! I’ve worked there and have been a patient there and have seen the mess! But the issues there don’t come close to what happens to you if you lose everything (including a functioning brain). Who pays for YOU if you have no family, no savings…absolutely nothing? Who pays for you if you have a heart attack? Answer: The American Taxpayers do. That’s why it’s not good to blame the left OR the right for any of the mess that Ronald Reagan started with his “trickle-down” BS that never worked. It is history my dear woman and it just doesn’t lie. And Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy? How did that work out? It didn’t. And the repeal of regulations that the Republicans fought for and Clinton signed…we all know that didn’t work either.

  2. Capitalism DOES work. It has reused more people from poverty than any other system. Under socialism NO ONE rises from where they are. Bush’s tax breaks DID bring in more revenue but they spent it and more. That doesn’t mean tax breaks don’t work. They do. Both Reagan and Bush has Democrat majority legislatures and they are the ones who spend the money. Bush’s deficit nearly doubled after Pelosi took over. My dear man, I DO know history. What regulations Republicans got Clinton to sign didn’t work? Work requirement for welfare? It got millions off the welfare rolls. “We all know” it DID work.

    If you don’t like my blog, I suggest you stop reading it. You offer nothing I don’t already know and haven’t already heard from every Liberal pundit.

    • archienc2014 says:

      The regulations that the Republicans fought for and Clinton signed were the financial regulations…specifically the Glass-Steagal Act. If that had still been in place in 2008, we never would have had the financial melt-down. Wall Street Greed got in the way and to date, there is still no one in jail for that. And I do like your blog. You bring up some interesting points…a little far-fetched at times but nevertheless, they are interesting.

    • CM Duckett says:

      My “Dear Lady”-
      It appears that you have been watching Fox News and Hannity too much.

  3. Again, you haven’t told me anything I haven’t heard before. Glass-Steagal wasn’t the cause of the financial meltdown. It contributed to it but it didn’t cause it. The “Neighborhood Reinvestment Act” was the cause. And that was a Carter/Clinton baby. It doesn’t take a financial genius to understand that giving mortgages to people who can’t pay them back is a bone headed policy. They gave “low income” borrowers interest only loans and told them in 5 years they could refinance. And adding more people to the market caused the price of houses to increase dramatically. The bubble burst and they couldn’t refinance because their loans were greater than their value. I covered all this in “Financial Meltdown for Dummies”.

    Glass-Steagal changes only allowed the bundling of good and bad mortgages. It didn’t force banks to make sub-prime mortgages.

  4. You just wore out your welcome. No Glass-Steagal was NOT what caused the sub-prime loans. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Act told banks if they wanted Fannie and Freddie to insure the rest of their mortgages a certain percentage had to be sub-prime. I have studied this extensively. Everything you say happened to you and you brother was caused by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Act. The banks were REQUIRED by it to make loans. Republicans tried to stop it. It’s a matter of public record. The video of the hearings are on YouTube. BTW, “greedy Wall Street” bankers are mostly DEMOCRATS. So if you want to blame Wall Street, look in the mirror. Republicans are no longer the rich party. I will spam any further comments from you.

    Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:10:39 +0000 To: mgreercasting@hotmail.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s