I think you just had a brain fart. Mental diapers on aisle 14.

"You represent the Progressive ideology that has ushered in this exploding welfare state we are seeing today".

The exploding welfare state happens to align with the exploding population, and the exploding wealth inequality, and the relative depreciation of the purchase power of currency.

"You are probably not old enough to know how it was 50 years ago when we actually had a majority of mothers and fathers raising our children."

Nostalgia for the good old days is not a solution for the problems of the present.

"It's called a FAMILY! A sound family helps it's own. We had no need for bloated social programs supporting drug addicts. THE PARENTS SUPPORTED THEIR OWN CHILDREN."

Parents still do attempt to support their own children. The percentage of welfare taken by drug addicts is far less significant than you imply here. The drug problem however, is much more a result of poverty and class warfare itself, than poverty is a result of drug addiction. Watch your causations.

"We had no need for social progrms supporting unwed mothers beause the parents helped those pregnant women."

Many, I imagine, still do. But these are also the days in which men quite commonly beat their wive and oppressive Christian dogma ruled politics. Regressive.

"Family has since the beginning of time been the bedrock of society."

Society, since the beginning of time, has been the bedrock of society. Early human cultures, before the advent of stationary living and land ownership, were communal; people shared responsibility for children among the entire society.

"It's family that helps family. There were Churches to help those with no famiies."

Churches are not the solution.

"We have always had a safety net for the helpless but Democrats have made welfare a career!"

I balk at your stupidity. Welfare is an insignificant expenditure by comparison to the money that is lost by failing to tax corporations.

"NEWSFLASH... case workers make terrible parents."

I agree. It is much better for any child to have two loving and determined parents.

"People like you refuse to address morality because you are bigots against our Christian heritage."

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality. If you cannot prove that God exists, and the universe functions the same whether we suppose he does or doesn't, then your claim to a monopoly on morality may be entirely discarded. As can your idea of objective moral rights and wrongs. Morality is much simpler than that anyway. It is a matter of social convention between distinctions of right and wrong, purposed for the cohesion and thus survival of the society. A divided society fails, and a united society flourishes. It strikes me, herein, as significant to note that democratic societies whose participants are mostly atheists, have much higher average quality of life than those whose participants are mainly religious. America being the extreme example of a "democratic" society mainly made up of religious people. The highest gun murder rate in the developed world; the highest violent crime rate in the developed world; the lowest high school graduation rate in the developed world; and which parts of America have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy? You guessed it: the Bible Belt. By comparison, democratic socialist countries like Finland or Iceland, have extremely low violent crime, low teenage pregnancy, low STD rates, and high levels of education.

"So therefore your only answer to poverty is bigger bloated social programs that are never implemented to solve the problem of poverty."

No. Poverty is a much more complex problem. Cheaper, or free, education (like you got in the 50s, I might add) is a significant factor; as is a higher minimum wage; homegrown industry, and better employment rights, augmented by more robust and efficient welfare systems, of course.

"All you ever do is try to redistribute more and more money from the working man to enable many lazy irresponsible people who for the most part have created their own problems."

This is nonsense. I do no such thing.

"I'm all for a safety net to help those who can not help themsleves. I want to address the broken families that is the CORE REASON for poverty."

The core reason for poverty is a political choice to allow poverty, and the many manifestations thereof. Poverty can't be overcome by making people marry and taking away the safety net to force people into low paid employment or extreme educational debt.

"I've lived long enough to see America before Progressives ruined it. Let me educate you on a few things.

Tell me who forced all these unwed mothers to have sex with these selfish irresponisible men who never gave one thought of supporting any child they might create."

Nobody did. Should we force them to abort their bastard kids or only have sex when they are married?

"Tell how the Rich man or the middle class forced those two people to hook up with no committment to each other."

They didn't. I haven't stated that they did. Straw man

"It's called selfish promiscuous irresponsibility. Thats the core reason for broken families. TAKING MORE MONEY FROM THE WORKERS DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM!"

Neither does Christianity.

"It's truy sad how brainwashed you have become from all the Liberal professors in College and the constant drumbeat of Liberal conditioning from our biased media and Hollywood.

What's so laughble is that all these Rich Hollywood elites never give their billions to poor people. No, they want to resdistribute the middle class wages to pay for these able bodied low income people."

Well that's a shame. But "Hollywood elite" and "socialist principles" aren't interchangeable terms. If I were a billionaire, I would be happy to pay 50% of my corporate taxes to help needy people. What the hell would I need billions of dollars for?

"We have seen many times how these Rich Democrat Politicians fight for all their might to use every loop hole in our tax code to save themselves taxes. THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO GIVE THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THESE SUPPOSEDLY HELPLESS PEOPLE."

Well they should.

"Socialism has proved many times not to work,"

As opposed to globalized capitalism? We have more impoverished people in the world now than we have ever had.

"and Obama's short time of enabling irresponsibility, and pushing socialistic tenants on our businesses, has done nothing more than creating swollen welfare roles and hideous increases in fatherless homes."

I highly doubt Obama is to blame for the increases in fatherless homes. I blame extreme neofeminist ideology and the biased custody system for that.

"Your ideiology has failed misserably and here you are still doubling down on failed socialistic politics."

My ideology? My ideology has never been implemented in America.

"When you reward irresponsibility and punish responsibility, you are destroying the fabric of our nation's work ethic."

Work ethic is a matter of effort:reward ratio. Comparatively, your generation were far better rewarded for their work.

"Live and learn please! We have a moral problem in this nation and until you admit it and address it, there is not enough money in the universe to support all the broken families."

I freely admit there is a moral problem. I just disagree with your ideas on what it actually is, and how it can be solved.

Money is a necessary item for anything nowadays, which means that the pursuit of it is assumed by many to be an integral and inalienable part of human society, failure at which is a sentence to inferiority in more ways than are just or indeed fair. Money also brings with it power and influence. Perhaps if those with plenty of money, power, and influence, used that money, power and influence to greater effect, there wouldn't be a poverty problem to begin with.

But therein is succinctly the problem: it is impossible, in a neocapitalist society, run as they are, not to have poor people who live off handouts; since it is not in the interests of the powerful, to defer that power back into the hands of the average citizen. The word capitalist, by its very definition, demands a capitalising class, and a capitalised-upon class. And since the end-result of a successful capitaliser is the exertion of power -- intended or not -- via the economic subjugation of others, those with money have significantly larger say in the ways in which a society is run, particularly economically.

This is know as an oligarchy. It is not democracy. In fact, it is dictatorship through financial enslavement. True democracy hands power to the masses, and not just in bipartisan elections, but in all areas of everyday life, from economic systems and educational policies, right down to mundanities like which buildings are to be built, or not built, in one's own area code.

Read any book detailing the Athenian experiment, and you will see what democracy truly looks like. Look briefly upon any country which has adopted it in its true form, and you will see a level of power granted to people which your average American can only dream of.

If someone who is acutely aware of this deception protests a filthy rich, highly privelaged, powerful businessman attempting to curtail the rights of the poor, destroy the planet further (out of ignorance), scapegoat a race for financial problems, and scapegoat a religion for social problems, then their protest is justifiable, and ought to be so in the eyes of anyone who retains the faculties necessary to sense injustice and to desire rectification. (It makes a significant difference from people protesting the election of a black President).

There is also absolutely nothing charitable about the necessity to support citizens who might otherwise starve, as since it is entirely impossible for a society which relies heavily on the idea of capitalisation, to provide stable and well paying jobs for every citizen, it is a necessity -- and I would argue a duty -- of the government to provide financially for those whom cannot, for whatever reason, undertake a profession.

To say that a necessary payout is charity -- in the dirtiest sense of the word -- just shows how fundamentally uncompassionate the capitalist ideal is.

You, my silly fellow human, have been endowed with a poor capacity for rational analysis, and it would seem, a deficiency of heart. But that's okay, because it's not really your fault. Nobody is born without altruism and a sense of justice, some people simply have it beaten out of them.