Friday, August 26, 2011

Throwing Money at a Moral and Ethical Problem Never Works...

Paying 'The Poor' to be better parents? How much you wanna bet most of that money went to crack, malt liquor and home pregnancy tests instead?

There are specific reasons why most 'Poor' people a) get -- and stay --that way, and b) are bad parents: they're stupid, and were mostly (not) raised by other stupid people. Giving them money to not be stupid hasn't worked for 50 years, but I guess some Libtard had his panties in a bunch and was determined, despite all that long experience with the Welfare State, to keep on trying.

The Alternative -- letting 'The Poor' starve in the streets in huge numbers or die from scurvy -- is somehow an unattractive prospect to a good little Libtard.

I use the term 'The Poor' (in quotation marks) because we don't really have truly poverty-stricken people in this country. One need only visit your local supermarket here in New York City to see what I mean. There you will see the sort of woman who drops children on a near-daily basis wandering the isles picking up several hundred dollars worth of PopTarts, Froot Loops, Instant Mashed Potatoes, Pork Rinds, Kool Aid, and 11 boxes of Dark N' Lovely Hair Relaxer -- with Food Stamps -- then leading her dirty-and-sullen-but-dressed-in-designer-togs-five-children-by-six-baby-daddies out to the family Escalade (complete with gold rims, and seat-back DVD players) in the parking lot, to drive back to her Federal-and-State-subsidized housing-project-cum-concentration-camp-apartment, from whence she has launched her blooming underground marijuana distribution business.

No, we don't have "Poor' people in this country, not in the sense that others living in, say, Bangladesh or Tegucigalpa are poor; we have people who have been trained by experience -- and Government -- at all levels, to 'milk' The System for taxpayer funds to support a lifestyle.

Poverty in America has, indeed, become a lifestyle, and it must be a pretty lucrative one because in some of this country's once-great Urban Landscapes, we're going on our fourth generation raised on Public Assistance. And the American Taxpayer is so (unwittingly) generous with their money that government at all levels has not only continued to encourage people to join in the stupidity of this outrageous theft, it conspires to import millions more truly poor and stupid people by failing to enforce it's own immigration laws.

Paying people to do that which they should already be doing for themselves is a rather lame way of redistributing 'excess' wealth that might otherwise have been put to productive use by consumers and families that don't need cash incentives to do their familial and parental duty, and which would probably put some other people to WORK doing something more economically viable, or, Heaven Forbid, which didn't involve simply stalking the mailman every month.

There's a reason why, after trillions of dollars wasted on 'The War on Poverty', why poverty still exists: there's good money in being a lazy, shiftless bastard who neglects their children, children who were, for the most part, only allowed to be born because having them entailed an even bigger government check.

Yes, there is good money to be had in poverty, and it's not just in the redistribution of other people's money to the incorrigible out-of-wedlock reproducers of this world; just ask any city-, state-, or federal-payroll douchebag, or paid-for-by-government-grant-money-drone who gets a hefty salary for rubber-stamping the applications of the Professional Panhandler Class for this or that half-assed 'anti-poverty' program, or who makes her (it's usually a her) living 'advocating' for, or 'community organizing' the Great, Unwashed Masses.

They love 'Poor' People. It's how they earn their own living.

So what if this particular program used privately-raised funds? The principle is the same. You're only subsidizing bad behavior – which means you’ll only get more bad behavior as a dividend -- and even in those rare occasions where the recipient actually did (mostly) follow The Rules, I can practically assure you that 98% of them stopped following The Rules just as soon as the flow of free cash dried up, if historical experience is any guide.

It's time for a little Social Darwinism in this country. It's coming, anyway, so why fight it? We're a broke-ass nation handing money out to people who are either incapable of supporting themselves and their children, or worse, unwilling to do so, who cannot or will not even follow the most basic (if unwritten) rules of a genteel society. How much longer do you think this state of affairs can continue before the 47% of the people who pay for it all -- and who are consistently harangued to hand over more of their hard-earned dough -- start to demand it all come to an inglorious end?

Revolutions (and by that, I mean successful revolutions, not that Communist bullshit that leaves a virtual paradise like Cuba without indoor plumbing or the ability to grow food), both social and political, are usually begun by middle-class folks whose chief complaint is that they're being inhumanly squeezed and harassed (usually economically) by their government overlords who are trampling their rights and plundering their property in the name of some lofty-but-wholly-insane load of horsecrap.

Like government programs that aim to 'eliminate' poverty by paying people -- well -- to stay poor.

If you want to eliminate the problems of 'The Poor' in America, then you need to make poverty, all aspects of it, a fate worse than death. Only then will people have the proper motivation to get up off their fat asses and actually DO SOMETHING with their lives, other than fuck and have children they can't feed, or can't be bothered to raise properly.

Some might find this attitude insensitive; some will consider it racist… ask me if I give a flying fuck at a rolling donut?

I feel the same way about people who live far beyond their useful years sucking up more Social Security and Medicare funds than they ever paid into the system, too. I’m a great believer in the adage that if you’ve outlived your savings – or capacity for productive work -- in your old age, and aren’t doing anything other than taking up a bed and a respirator that could be used to save someone more useful, then you’re just as bad as a Welfare Queen. The principle is exactly the same.

Between the mollycoddled elderly, the paid-to-stay-that-way ‘Poor’, and the encouraged-to-live- surreptitiously-off-the-fat-of-the-land illegal immigrants, this country has spent itself into deficits as far as the eye can see, which has resulted in reduced economic opportunities for people, like me, who are still in their prime earning years, who have to suffer the indignity of having their wallets raped by out-of-control government to pay for the unproductive and often irredeemable.

Yeah, yeah, I know: we’re, all, our Brother’s Keeper. It just really sucks-and-then-swallows when this dialectic is extended to your rhetorical brother’s Baby Mommas, children, and great-grandma, and your rhetorical brother won’t get off his rhetorical ass and get a rhetorical fucking job and do it himself, like he should.

No comments: