Is Iraq a welfare queen?
The problem with liberals, we're told, is that they give poor people stuff. This saps their initiative, makes them dependent on government largess, and leaves taxpayers on the hook for this legislative underwriting of indolence.
It's the old "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime'' gambit. (Although among your more rabid conservatives, teaching a man to fish costs money, and if it doesn't come from the private sector, well, -- trial and error was good enough for Cro-Magnon man, it ought to be good enough for single moms in Camden.)
Seems rather strange, then, that the neoconservatives haven't figured out that as long as our brave soldiers are doing all the heavy lifting in the civil war-torn, terrorist-incubating land that is Iraq, they have no incentive to pull themselves up by their own sandal straps.
How long before they take responsibility and pay the freight for all this freedom we've given them?
It's the old "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime'' gambit. (Although among your more rabid conservatives, teaching a man to fish costs money, and if it doesn't come from the private sector, well, -- trial and error was good enough for Cro-Magnon man, it ought to be good enough for single moms in Camden.)
Seems rather strange, then, that the neoconservatives haven't figured out that as long as our brave soldiers are doing all the heavy lifting in the civil war-torn, terrorist-incubating land that is Iraq, they have no incentive to pull themselves up by their own sandal straps.
How long before they take responsibility and pay the freight for all this freedom we've given them?
posted by Michael Riley at 10:53 AM
14 Comments:
There is an old axiom in economics that holds that if you want people to do more of something, lower the costs associated therewith. (e.g., If you want people to buy more apples, lower the price of apples.) In that light, if you want more single moms in Camden, then start giving them free stuff. (e.g., their own apartment, food stamps, free medical care, bus tokens, cash, etc.)
Our troops are still in Europe from WW2 so I don't see how a time frame matters in protecting and training people in Iraq.If my memory serves me we still have soldiers in Bosnia from the Clinton administration.As for mom in Camden, where is daddy?If a man doesn't work he should not eat,and one who doesn't care for his family is worse than an infidel.
they should be forcibly sterilized to stop producing more generations of welfare babies..especially when 4 of their babies have 4 different illegitimate daddies..who da daddy (s)? most of them are in prison also getting educated, fed, clothes,sheltered and free medical care- on our dime...as far as Iraq goes, we need to leave..let them all battle til the strongest faction survives and then wipe them out too...
Iraq is a poor white woman living in a trailer park with 2 kids and collecting welfare?
There are absolutely no social factors contributing to anyone's dependence on welfare. Every man who doesn't work is lazy. There is employment enough and money enough for everyone willing to work to get by.
Women are treated equally in the workplace. Although they are most often left with the burden of children after a divorce, they should still have to work more than 40 hours a day split between 3 part time jobs because no employer should have to pay overtime or provide healthcare.
The transience of deadbeat Dads signifies a weak genetic trait in minority populations.
There's diamonds in the sidewalks.
They pay us back, alright..with IED's, roadside bombings on our troops and daily terrorist acts against our forces...some thanks! No more US government-issued hummus and flatbread for the towel-heads...
Maybe Mommy in Camden should be given free condoms?
There is a book entitled Nickel and Dimed, relatively recent. It is about a reporter who took on various low paying jobs (Walmart, waitressing, cleaning motels) in various parts of the country. She met a lot of hard-working folks that just could not live on these wages with no benefits...the book was an eye-opener for me.
I believe some people milk the system, but I also believe that some people on welfare have exhausted avenues to feed their children too. Welfare must be a humiliating plight.
For the last time...
There is no indication in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights that we are gauranteed anything other than unfettered opportunity. My Depression Era parents were born to piss-poor parents and now they live in a gated golf course community with no financial problems because they had the guts and determination and responsibility to change their destiny. Nobody in the federal/state gov't ever gave them a dime. The entitlement mentality will destroy this nation. As P.J. O'Rourke said, "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die anymore." Screw the losers.
Congratulations,
That's nice and all but it is another case of mistaking the exception to the rule for the rule itself.
And maybe your parents didn't receive money from the government, but anyone who was piss-poor in the depression era received aid in the form of Roosevelt's New Deal, which today I'm sure, would come off to you as a giant commie government handout.
And keep in mind: you, the person making the comments, are the son/daughter of two parents who "now...live in a gated golf course community with no financial problems." Let your parents speak for themselves because you - being a child of such privilege - have little credibility.
still no excuse for mega children, often from different daddies..who's your daddy? welfare?
Now those are nappy-headed hos..
"So the prevailing opinion here would seem to be that welfare is bad..." -- Ray
Show me a welfare program that takes someone out of poverty and puts him/her into a job (e.g., grants that would send someone to truck driving school for a month, student loans for college students, tax credits for businesses that train apprentices, etc.) and I will show you a program that enjoys the support of 75% of the American people.
If, however, your plan for combating poverty involves little more than what LBJ and the Democrats/liberals have given us for the last 40 years (e.g., more welfare checks, food stamps, public housing, free medical care that 20% of the working public/poor can't afford themselves, etc.), then don't be surprised when that same public recognizes your plan for the failure that it is -- to wit, a system designed to keep the poor precisely where they are. In short, convince me that your are teaching the man to fish instead of ... well, you know the rest.
Papinian,
Convince me first that the "Invisible Hand" is not employed in keeping the status quo. When enough capital is consolidated, the entire system of supply and demand is thrown off.
Even though labor may be in high demand, through collective efforts, employers no longer need to increase wages in order to supply the demand. (If neither K-Mart nor Wal-Mart offer a wage much above minimum, both jobs will be filled by an untrained employee who will not make enough to advance much further in life, let alone live comfortably).
Although I admit that any progressive welfare legislation has had great shortcomings, it is during these periods that those willing can transcend their current positions. Then they control the capital and rally for welfare reform.
Since welfare reform, there has been a drastic reduction in upward mobility, as in the 80's with Reganomics. No one necessarily deserves a "free" handout, but with so much power allied to maintain an unfair status quo, some social program needs to be instituted.
hey papist/wacky anon..why should any of your fellow Catholics require welfare from gov't at all when your church should help them out..oh yeah, I forgot..all the donations, money meant for catholic charity and for own communities is being spent on your pedophile priests' defense lawyers' funds..clean up your own house and use those funds for the needy parishioners at least..
Post a Comment
<< Home