A Quote by Rush Limbaugh
Liberals measure compassion by counting the number of people receiving government help.
Quote Topics
Quote Author
Related Quotes
Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.
When caring for your neighbor becomes a compulsory obligation imposed by government instead of voluntary, charity turns to confiscation and freedom to achieve to involuntary servitude. To liberals, compassion seems to be defined by how many people are dependent on the government; to conservatives, it's defined by how many people no longer need help. One promotes dependence, the other freedom, responsibility and achievement.
Racism itself is difficult to measure. We can measure hate crimes - which are absolutely an indicator. We can measure reports of discrimination. We can measure the number of times hateful words are being used across the Internet. Those things all help us measure racism, but it can sometimes be nebulous.
Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who recieve some kind of government aid but rather by the number of people who no longer need it.
It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral, self-righteous, bullying laziness.
The only measure of your success is in the number of people you have help.
To receive more, we must give out what we receive. . . . For it is by giving that we set in operation the unfailing law of measure for measure. With no thought of receiving, it is impossible to avoid receiving, for the abundance you have given is returned to you in fulfillment of the law.
You can have very big local government. By big, I mean very engaged government. Do you measure it in terms of the number of laws? Number of employees? You could make arguments for either one. I tend to think the axis of the size of government is the wrong concern. But I do think that situating power more locally is a legitimate approach.
If a lobbyist sets up shop, or a lawyer, in which they're receiving income through what is something like a tax loophole so that it's not counting as corporate income, that is what this is counting as a small business.
You measure a government by how few people need help.
Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.
If, for example, existing government intervention is minor, we shall attach a smaller weight to the negative effect of additional government intervention. This is an important reason why many earlier liberals, like Henry Simons, writing at a time when government was small by today's standards, were willing to have government undertake activities that today's liberals would not accept now that government has become so overgrown.
Compassion and mercy are important, period. It doesn't matter who's at our receiving end, but we need to be flexing those muscles. It's not mutually exclusive: If you have compassion for children starving in Africa, it doesn't mean you can't have compassion for adults in Africa or animals that are being tortured and abused.
My philosophy is not a bean-counting, accounting 'look at this.' It is a philosophy that smaller government is better government, and government that is closer to the people is best of all.
No longer can we measure compassion by how much we spend on poverty but how many people we help to lift out of poverty.
Liberals have shifted government into a position of being neutral between right and wrong. By concentrating power in government institutions, liberals chisel at the three pillars of society: the family unit, work ethic and faith. That's not good for America.
Related Authors
Adam Carolla Quotes
American
Entertainer
Andrew Flintoff Quotes
English
Entertainer
Conan O'Brien Quotes
American
Entertainer
David Copperfield Quotes
American
Entertainer
Dick Cavett Quotes
American
Entertainer
Earl Nightingale Quotes
American
Entertainer
Jamie Hyneman Quotes
American
Entertainer
Jim Ross Quotes
American
Entertainer
Jon Stewart Quotes
American
Entertainer
Khloe Kardashian Quotes
American
Entertainer
Marc Maron Quotes
American
Entertainer
Martha Stewart Quotes
American
Entertainer
Oprah Winfrey Quotes
American
Entertainer
Penn Jillette Quotes
American
Entertainer
RuPaul Quotes
American
Entertainer
Simon Cowell Quotes
British
Entertainer