Republicans do Welfare better
One has to ask, if liberal welfare policies work, why don't they? Why haven't they? If they worked, why are Democrat areas worse off by every available metric, and Republicans better by virtually all of them?
Judge Democrat and Republican areas, states and cities, by almost any metric. Crime, poverty, homelessness, murder rates, access to healthcare, graduation rates and grade point averages, even health outcomes. It's literally almost impossible to find anything the Democrats or left-wing parties are better at in the U.S., and even in most countries overseas. [1] If you look at the top 30 cities for violent crime and murder in the U.S., 27 are Democrat, and Republicans have cities with comparable population sizes and densities without this level of crime. [1][2][3] Republican Mayor Rudi Giuliani ran New York, a traditionally democrat city, and crime was cut in half during this period, and went back up under Democrat rule later on. Out of the top 10 states for homelessness, 9 have democrat Governors. In Baltimore, the city has one of the highest amounts of spending per capita for any student in the world, and despite this, they have one of the lowest graduation rates and highest failure rates in the country for education; more than half of Baltimore schools have zero students reaching grade level for math or reading. California has spent more than 100,000 dollars per year per homeless person, enough to literally buy them all houses, and homeless has increased by 1.5 times the amount since these programs were enacted. These states and cities have paid exorbitant, massive tax rates, several times that of other states, to actually make the problem worse. It's hard to find a single success story for any democrat area adopting these policies.
Despite insisting constantly, endlessly, gratingly, in their ceaseless screeching that they have the one true solution to all our problems with yet another useless liberal welfare program, liberal welfare programs obviously fail by almost any observable metric. This is despite paying exorbitantly high tax rates in all these cities for the supposed benefits of the government policing you for walking down the street (stop and frisk), eating salt, having certain colors of cars or certain type of Styrofoam, or even certain sized sodas, all actual laws in New York and Democrat cities. This was even before mask mandates and shutting down all small businesses, synagogues, and churches, while allowing big corporations to stay open, the party that pretends to be against big business (despite receiving the most corporate funding and open support from companies which ban Republicans off their platform, such as Donald Trump). Despite all this, they then release almost all the violent criminals by emptying out the prisons, all the while policing the very air you breathe, literally even regulating how you can breathe which used to be a joke among Republicans (mask mandates), don't let you own a gun or simply walk down the street unaccosted, or even park your car (meters), while doing nothing or even assisting actual violent criminals. Prosecution rates for violent criminals in some Democrat cities is down from 85%, to just 15% in just a few years time. At the same time, violent crime and homicides have more than doubled in many cases. 40% of cities in America have stopped reporting crime rates all together; 75% of New York Cities district do not even report crime at all, giving an artificial appearance as if crime is dropping to 1/4 it's actual levels.
Despite all you pay, the government wastes the money policing you and normal human behavior, and does nothing to stop crime, lower homelessness, or alleviate poverty. You pay more for less. It's in effect, very expensive poverty. You pay more to live in a miserable place like the Bronx, LA or even New York, and have horrible conditions to deal with. You can pump nearly endless money in to these programs and get even worse results as the systems, the programs themselves, are simply ran poorly. It's not about more money, more money, more money. The left has sold many of the American people that more spending is equal to more compassion, that them spending your tax money is somehow compassionate (giving you back your own money), but in reality those that can do more for less are the one's who can alleviate your problems. While not being seen "as sexy" to do something like explain the Laffer Curve or marginal tax rate issues, or to talk about helping the economy or refining tax spending, it produces real, legitimate real world results for the average person that actually helps them in their every day lives. While Banal, you don't need a flashy or insane program with some fancy new idea, but something that simply reflects common sense, practical, grounded ideas that have already been around for a while. Ideas proven, in the real world, and not some liberal dream world to actually work. The Baltimore school district for example spends far more than the national average on education, among the highest spending per student of any city in America, and has the literal worst gradepoint averages and graduation rates in the entire country, with half the schools having all the kids there not at grade level for math or reading. The endless, bottomless, blackhole spending ends up with literally the worst results in the country by the metrics, as most of the money is funneled to useless pet programs or teacher's unions, which ends up largely in Democrat reelection campaigns or is simply wasted (in one instance, teacher's unions received 11 billion dollars in government funding, and yet 10 billion of that went to Democrats. Yes literally 90% of the funding to teacher union's went to Democrat reelection campaigns, they were even sued).
When Republicans say they want the government out of things, what they mean is to put an end to the forms of government interference that actually makes things worse, such as useless liberal welfare programs that actually seem to always make the problem worse. Republicans are generally not anarchists who are against the existence of the state, and generally tend to be pro-police and military for example (while the left calls them racist fascists), as well as have in the past expanded medicare and medicade as well as created various government welfare programs, such as the PEPFAR program which put an end to the AID's pandemic under Bush and is credited to have done so internationally, largely by using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, or Medicare D a program by Bush to pay for prescription medication. Republicans simply create less for more; a more efficient program that spends less to get better results. The left also uses problems they create with their programs to justify more of their ridiculous program, largely aimed at targeting you and blaming you for all the problem they create. For example, they left will get rid of or defund police in their cities, and when crime goes up, rather than bringing the police back, they insist they need to disarm you and take more of your rights via gun control, which just leaves you disarmed and not criminals who still have guns and will continue to get guns by breaking the law (buying home made or smuggled guns off the black market, which can be accessed by the internet). The Democrats claim your freedom of speech might to lead to violence, after all your words could provoke someone, and your ability to own a gun might lead to violence (despite hundreds of millions of gun owners, and tens of thousands of murders, literally 0.01% of legal gun owners being violent criminals or less), therefore we need to take away your speech and your guns, but nevermind the actual rapists and murderers we just let out of prison, and all the cops we just defunded. The problem according to them, is YOU, not their terrible policies that lead to this nightmare scenario of endless riots and gang warfare.
And does crime ever go down in liberal cities when they ban guns, raise taxes, and restrict your freedoms? One has to ask, if liberal welfare policies work, why don't they? Why haven't they? If they worked, why are Democrat areas worse off by every available metric, and Republicans better by virtually all of them? Is it black magic, completely 100% random, some kind of insane fluke for the last 70 years? Or, is it less magical and insane, and simply a matter of bad policies the democrats won't take responsibility for. It gets tiring, after a while, hearing the left screech about compassion, when they've done nothing but run their cities down in to the ground, often times literally burning them down to the ground in riots. In the 30's, democrats claimed the problem was black people causing all the crime, but couldn't explain why Republican areas with more black people didn't have as much crime as their cities. In the 70's, democrats claimed it was a lack of regulations on guns and speech, but still couldn't explain why crime was only centered in their areas. Since the 90's they've reversed things and claimed actually it's the police who are secretly all racist and not them, but once again, can't explain why it's only their cities and states with the problems and high crime. Why don't our Republican areas have the same problem, if we are supposedly the more racist-er one's, and it's all the secret racist police's problems? Every time they demand we impose a federal solution to change the entire country to their whims, to reflect their cities and their frequently insane or absurd policies, despite their cities having objectively the worst outcomes and their policies having shown a continuous record of failures.
Despite their continuous string of failures for the last 70 years and total 180 degree flip on some political positions (which they insist Republicans and Democrats "switched", another dubious claim), they still blame Republicans for all their problems, and still have never taken responsibility for their failures, thus leading to the problems in these places never being fixed. How could it possibly be Republicans and a random Republican town 1500 miles away causing all the problems in democrat cities, when we don't have the same problem here? Apparently, secret racists or evil guns waddle out of the gunsafes of republican gun owners 1500 miles away from Texas or some other red state and gun down unarmed black youths every night, with it never possibly being the problem of their own failed policies. If they could admit the problem and then actually accept what was necessary to fix things, this would change, but it's Anathema to what being a democrat is. What would be the point of them if they all essentially became Republicans? Instead they lie, deride, and attack Republicans, smearing them as having a lack of compassion, being evil, being terroristic, and even racist, despite Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, freeing the slaves, and Republicans passing most civil rights bills even as far as the 90's, of which Democrats such as Biden and Kamala harris have tried to repeal racial protections for hiring in the civil rights bill as late as 2023 (no seriously, read their proposed amendment, it wants to remove race as a protected category so you can choose not to hire black people). Democrats insist we are and have done every evil under the sun, ironically every evil that they have done in the past including making the KKK and slavery, and rather than winning by merit, they win by lying about their opponents. Despite all this bluster, just stop for a moment and think about how democrats have improved your city, or state, if in any way possible. Even at the federal level, under Biden's gas and economic policies, gas has more than tripled in price, inflation has gone up by 20-40%, the cost of everything including housing is skyrocketing, and you're taxes have gone up; you're essentially paying more for less. It's very expensive poverty, where you pay more in Taxes, and it actually makes things worse. Consider that, maybe, just maybe, their politics just don't work, and may even make things worse. In some cases, even deliberately. Consider, that maybe Republicans simply do welfare better.
Corruption and incompetence
It's not very probable that everything the left does wrong is on purpose, given that mistakes are human, and the left doesn't seem to be all that smart. When bumbling and jumbling sentences together, it's hard to even know what Biden is really trying to achieve, or if "Trunadafannananapressure", or "Badakafcare" is really an important part of their infrastructure plan. Doubtless there is a large degree of incompetence and stupidity on their side. However, it's also difficult to believe this is all a part of a laser guided coincidence that all happened by mistake; too much of it is systematically coordinated, has been argued for, for more than 70 years despite it's history of failure, and seems to make democrats and their allies rich, and give them more power. Corruption is a big part of the problem; if you waste welfare funding, let's say millions of dollars for homeless shelters go to democrat-owned hotels instead (this actually happened in LA), it's inevitable the problem never gets solved. If 90% of school funding goes to teacher's unions that then give it directly back to democrats to get reelected to give themselves even more money (this happened in Baltimore), then why do we act surprised when the most highly funded schools in America are actually just a money laundering scheme for democrats, and it's the students themselves who suffer from it? By failing, the left creates a problem, and then demands more funding to solve it. There's more homelessness, we more more money, there's worse student grade averages, we need more money. And where does that money go? To homeless shelters and students? Of course not, straight to their own pockets through malicious programs. If they can create a problem, they can sell themselves as the solution, make it worse, and then destroy things even further. The more homeless people there are, the more funding they get, and the more funding they can then misuse to the same programs that are never intended to solve the problem.
It's hard to believe that democrats own the hotels getting the billions of dollars from the anti-homelessness programs, and then when they kick out all the homeless people and just use the money for themselves, that it was all a "big mistake". No, it seems like there is deliberate malicious corruption on the part of those in office. And while it exists on both sides, the breathtaking openness of the democrats and their sheer level of depravity is not only astounding, but genuinely makes the problem worse. It's not just incompetence; the left does this on purpose. That being said, there is a failure of short term thinking among many democrats, some of which are well-meaning. For example, it's true, indeed that we have 3 times as many homeless shelters as homeless people in this country and thus we actually don't need to build more. A homeless shelters does not prevent the cause of homelessness, it's merely a band-aid solution on top of an existing problem. Even if a homeless person is sheltered, he still is homeless. The root, fundamental cause of the problem is mental illness and drug addiction, with the overwhelming majority, or over 90% of chronically homeless people, of which there are around 100,000 in the U.S. (which is to be fair less than most of Europe, 6 times lower than the UK for example), and so fixing the problem isn't about building another homeless shelter or having another canned food drive which, these are all good things, but rather in attacking the root cause of the problem. I don't mean to demean those who really have donated and put in a lot of their time at shelters or food drive programs, this is a good and moral thing and even necessary, but it is not itself a solution to homelessness. The homeless person who is given a good meal, will wander outside that night and become homeless for another day, needing to come back to get another meal the next day. This keeps them alive, which is a good thing, but does not fundamentally solve homelessness. Why is this person homeless in the first place? There's section nine housing, welfare programs, foodstamps, government loans for housing, charities, and likely family members who would take this person in. So why aren't they able to stay indoors and wander outside? It's not a lack of compassion, but usually a mental health problem on the part of the homeless person themselves. Fixing this is the key to fixing the homelessness problem, and as Republican areas tend to focus on this, the deep long-term problem and not just alleviating short-term needs, we have lower homelessness overall.
On the face of it, it's easy to see how people could be caught up in donating more to a solution that simply never solves the underlying issue. After all we need homeless shelters, but just not too many of them. It's reasonable to see how a mistake like this might happen organically. However, consider also that as homelessness goes up, homeless programs get more funding; if these organizations can take the money and put it towards expensive hotels or other money laundering programs, they actually profit off of homelessness, and thus never have an incentive to end it. While we like to believe something like this would never happen, it is the rule, not the exception in democrat cities. We can point to cases of this happening in LA, New York, San Francisco, Portland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, and virtually any other democrat stronghold in the country. There is no incentive to end homelessness as their is big money to be made; numerous documentaries, even by democrats themselves have been made of this, but if there is an overwhelming problem of corruption, than there is no desire to fix the problem as it makes them money. It may be hard to understand why at first, but it becomes breathtakingly simple when you look at it; they simply misuse the money. They can say the reason they raised your taxes is to fight homelessness, but if they end up building a new fleet of hotels or football stadiums, you quickly realize this is a lie. Yes they may say it's for one thing, but if they end up spending it on another, isn't it weird they never talk about it afterwards? Much of the media is literally directly owned by the Democrats, such as Bloomberg News which is owned by the former mayor of New York, Bloomberg, or the Washingtonpost which is owned by Jeff Bezos and who is in the top 5 donors to democrats, or CNN which was owned by Ted Turner who literally went duck hunting with fidel castro, a mass murdering communist, and who made CNN with the explicit intention to "show the other side of things", the socialist, mass-murdering side of things. Not every one of these people and papers are far left, or as far left and psychotic as Ted Turner, but all of them have an open and obvious bias. Therefore, even when the left is exposed, you often never hear about it, as most the major media corporations are literally owned by democrats or democrat donors, and the few remaining Republican owned or supported outlets are deliberately lied about and suppressed. Out of all the media in the U.S., only 7% is Republican, which is a staggering figure when you realize they make up half our population. You literally just almost never get to hear their side of things, and thus in your bubble may literally believe Trump is a fascist, Republicans are sekrit evil racists and so on, but curiously never actually get to hear from them. It's always someone talking about them, but never them getting to talk on CNN or the Washingtonpost or the New York times, themselves. Rumour and gossip about them wins the day.
Some Raw metrics and explanation
Despite how obvious the difference is, what are the metrics, the methods of gathering this information and the reason why things are the case? It's obvious when just looking at Democrat and Republican cities and States, Republican places tend to always have lower crime and homelessness, poverty and other such issues, but what is the deeper meaning as to why? First I will explain the statistics in and of themselves and what they mean exactly, and then expound deeper in to why these things are the case.
