Skip to main content

Who really supports welfare?



Who really supports welfare?
by Matthew Edward Hayward on Friday, February 4, 2011

Democrats support localized social welfare; they also support (generally speaking) foreign welfare. Republicans support corporate welfare, and foreign welfare, though not in the same context as Democrats. Both major parties support welfare, the difference only being to whom the plundered money should go. True conservatives and libertarians however, oppose the welfare warfare system, they also oppose corporatism. Foreign welfare, whether intended for humanitarian or geopolitical reasons, is wrong and immoral, especially when it comes before the welfare of ones own country. It is not in our best interest to prop up dictators of foreign nations, inciting massive hatred for America while going bankrupt borrowing the money from China and the Federal Reserve.

Mainstream Republicans view it as immoral to plunder one class of society to benefit another, yet they find it reasonable to borrow money from competing nations to simply distribute it throughout the world in an attempt to create profitable foreign relations, especially when those relations benefit multinational corporations. Our foreign policy is hardly based on our courtier’s well being, we are going bankrupt and the world hates us!

While I would like to say that I uniformly oppose all welfare, if forced to make a choice, I choose welfare for American citizens before welfare that benefits multinational corporations and foreign countries. America has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We need to stop spending money oversees donating and propping up dictatorships and puppet governments. We need to stop funding both sides of every conflict in the world, afterward providing humanitarian aid. We need to stop bailing out corporations and start repealing regulations that limit small businesses competition in the marketplace. Once we have done all this, then and only then is it logical to address our broken health care system, and the system we have created that perpetuates governmental dependency. Local welfare is a problem and it is a problem that can be best addressed by encouraging social interaction and civic involvement. We must restore power to local governments, empowering the citizens of their local communities.

There's 192 Countries That Exist In The World & We Give Foreign Aid To Over 150 Of Them!" Rep Poe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocVj6UWiDI

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...
1 comment
Read more