1 Corinthians verse 11: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."He got more! It's not fair!" That's what a child says. When will the liberals finally put away their childish things? NEO-NEOCON links a story from [The Hill] about what Obama's annual State of the Union Address will focus on—income inequality.
Killing the golden goose always seems like a great idea at the time. If you think about it logically you'll understand that stealing from the rich to give to the poor doesn't just hurt the rich, it also hurts the poor. It causes the rich victim to feel resentful, angry and rebellious. It causes the poor recipients to become greedy, and stay lazy.
The rich change their business behavior in response to external factors like taxes, zoning, and environmental ordinances. At some point if the government exacts taxes or enacts laws that are too onerous the successful business owners will simply leave. Some of them will hide their earnings. Some of them will just go out of business. They'll sell their otherwise successful business—often in pieces—to the highest bidder(s).
The poor will also change their behavior in response to external factors. If [stuff] is to be given to those meeting certain poverty level criteria, the poor will change whatever is necessary in order to meet these criteria. If they're making too much at their jobs they'll cut their hours. If the "family" is making too much then one or more family members will quit their jobs. Finally, and worst of all, poor people will quit legitimate jobs to pursue so-called under-the-table jobs. These kinds of jobs are often black market operations, i.e. drugs, sex, and gambling. No record of income is made available to the state and so the very gangsters busy destroying our children by hooking them on drugs and prostituting them—and raking in thousands a month of illegal money in the process—also qualify for and take advantage of section 8 housing, food-stamps, welfare, etc.
When trying to reduce systemic poverty, well-intentioned helpers, case workers, officials, philanthropists, etc., often fail because they mistake the symptoms for the problem. Poor people are poor—they think—because they have no money. They have no money—they think—because they have no job. They have no job—they think—because they have no skills. They have no skills—they think—because of failing schools, endemic racism, single-motherhood, poverty, ad infinitum. So the solution—they think—is to throw money at the problem. If that doesn't work the solution is obviously more money.
Well, what is the problem? Over the centuries there have been several waves of immigrants who came here with nothing. They fled from religious persecution, from famine, from oppressive regimes, and yet they became successful. They weren't inundated with a well-intentioned flood of cash and yet somehow they pulled themselves up through hard work and determination. They almost universally became successful functioning members of our American society. These immigrants are living proof that the problem isn't poverty.
I don't have any proof but—in my opinion—the problem is the poisonous culture the poor cling to. It's a self-sustaining poison of hatred and sloth. Generations of poverty stricken failures living off the government teat, skipping school, joining gangs, having unwed sex, selling and using drugs, prostituting themselves, never once cracking a book, and ridiculing, mocking, and torturing the one or two of them who honestly try to escape these miserable conditions through study and hard-work.
The poor—especially in the "inner cities" cling to their anti-culture. They revere the most thuggish, the most violent, the stupidest. They call it "keeping it real." It's my opinion that these tribes who cling so intransigently to this hateful angry poisonous culture, who absolutely refuse to—at long last—finally grow up, are in need of a more honest appellation. What do you think? Does the phrase bitter-clingers hit pretty close to the mark?