Quotes About Social programs

Within the coming decade alone, three signal amendments would be added to the Constitution: the Sixteenth, giving the national government the power to levy a progressive income tax, without which many of the New Deal's social programs might not have been possible; the Seventeenth, providing for the popular election of U.S. senators; and the Nineteenth, finally granting American women the right to vote.

The reason why the Liberals and the NDP don't want parents to know about the universal child care benefit is because those parties would take that benefit away.

I saw the real difference between politicians who supported programs like Head Start and those who didn't. I started getting really excited about politics.

The best reason to diminish social programs is not to put more money in people's pockets but to put more responsibility in people's pockets.

The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.

If liberalism discredited itself, Obama woulda never gotten elected, and the New Deal woulda gone by the wayside, and LBJ woulda never gotten the Great Society. Liberalism does not discredit itself. It has to be explained and beaten back.

Let's be honest about this the liberal agenda with failed stimulus plans and government entitlement programs is crippling our economy and our quality of life.

This administration is cutting the programs that our Nation and its citizens need most, while dissolving the safety nets created to protect the elderly and less fortunate in this wealthy Nation.

Well-fed people can enhance their dignity, their health and their learning capacity. Putting resources into social programs is not expenditure. It is investment.

I believe in infrastructure, I believe in investing in your hard assets. Where I think government starts to fail is when it starts getting itself weighed down with the social programs. And I think the American public just feels like a lot of that money is tossed aside and wasted.

Sadly, this is the same old Republican story of Robin Hood in reverse - tax cuts for the rich while programs for average and low income Americans suffer.

Social welfare is destroying the soul of America. Social programs are cancers growing within the spirit of the people they were created to serve. Social programs do not make people stronger. They keep people weak, depending on the government to solve their problems.

We can't spend money on programs just because they sound good... Meals on Wheels sounds great.

I don't like a lot of social programs either because it makes you non-productive.

I am a Democrat; I want to fund programs that help people. In order to do that, you need to have revenues and you have revenues when you have jobs.

No major politician or party has so much as publicly remarked on the existence of an American empire. Imperial power is not about restraint, and the consequences of empire are evident in domestic politics: in military expenditures, subsidies to globalizing corporations, mounting deficits, and the decimation of social programs and environmental safeguards.

big spending is anti-American when directed to social programs but patriotic if it is funneled to the beneficiaries/defenders of the corporate state.

Unlike the Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and poor, inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an insecure workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers.

We can now see clearly why liberal arguments for social programs can make no sense at all to conservatives, whether they are arguments on the basis of compassion, fairness, wise investment, financial responsibility, or outright self-interest.

Thus, pragmatic liberals see social programs as a way to help others pursue their self-interest, while idealistic liberals see social programs as a commitment to providing basic human needs, which is an end in itself. To pragmatic liberals social programs are investments; to idealistic liberals, they are a matter of civic duty. Again

Finally, Obama's remarks are carefully constructed to undermine the arguments of conservatives, who frame the social programs funded by taxation as government handouts to the undeserving. Obama flips the taxes-as-handouts frame on its head, to yield a frame in which tax breaks are handouts to the rich, and the estate tax is a transfer of wealth from ordinary taxpayers to wealthy individuals—a frame that tells a vital truth. It

Governments allocate enormous resources for social programs. And it is true that for many years we have had one of the best social service systems in the world. Yet we are still incapable of meeting the needs of tens of thousands of Canadian families.

Social-impact partnerships address our moral responsibilities to ensure that social programs actually improve recipients' lives, and to do so in a fiscally prudent manner.

Thus, it is natural for liberals to see it as the function of the government to help people in need and hence to support social programs, while it is equally natural for conservatives to see the function of the government as requiring citizens to be self-disciplined and self-reliant and, therefore, to help themselves. This