Always browse the comments.

From "RedStater," a comment on this article in AT reposted in full:

Of all the faults of modern liberalism, this is the one that is the most baffling: their inability to see how their ideas and policies have the opposite affect of what it is they claim to wish to achieve. The "war on poverty" has not dented the percentage of the poor among us, but is has hastened the demise of the family by making fathers unnecessary, the work ethic irrelevant, and the population even more segregated by class, as economic mobility is stifled. The pursuit of green energy has not lessened our dependence on fossil fuels an iota, but has made certain our dependence on foreign oil, notably that of Islamic regimes pledged to our downfall, for generations to come. It also guarantees our need to continue intervening militarily in the Middle East to keep the oil coming. Federal meddling in education to create a uniform standard has increased illiteracy, not lessened it. One could go on all day.

The reason modern liberalism is such a colossal failure is that at its root it denies human nature and thinks our innate qualities can be supplanted with good intentions and enough of other people's money. They don't seem to get that confiscating wealth from the earners and giving it to those who did nothing to warrant it except fail at life only creates resentment: from the givers, who are being asked to believe that their wealth confiscation is somehow "charity", and by the receivers who are stripped of the dignity that comes from overcoming want and adversity and are deprived of the self-respect that only self reliance can provide.

There is an axiom in economics 101 that states that whichever things one wishes to discourage, that thing needs to be taxed. And whatever thing one wishes to encourage, that thing is to be subsidized. Is it any wonder that we have more people receiving government assistance in some form than those who are not? That businesses have shut down or fled the country in droves? That only the super-rich not bound by our borders are increasing in wealth, while the middle and upper middle class have watched their profits shrink and in some cases disappear?

We even assign the vulgar term "entitlement" to the aid we provide. Is it any wonder that those receiving it are not only not grateful to receive it, but are constantly demanding more?

Republicans have done a lousy job explaining capitalism, because they too have lost sight of human nature. The person who earns their own way, provides for themselves, and is rewarded for innovation is the one who advances the culture. The ones who are allowed to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions are the ones who will overcome them, develop courage and discipline and join the ranks of the achievers. Yes, there will always be exception, always the needy will be with us. But we have taken dependency to a level that is unimaginable to our founders.
 
I saw a picture on line the other day. It was an image of a thumb drive, and it said under it "CAPITALISM: this single device has saved more trees than Greenpeace ever has or ever will." Truer words were never spoken, and it is something we should be shouting from the rooftops. It is capitalism and nothing else that will elevate the poor, save whatever parts of our planet that needs saving, educate our children. Not Medicare, not welfare, not subsidized housing, not the EPA, not teacher's unions, not free breakfast and lunch programs.

Amen.  Read the article, too, while you're at it.