Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

We live in two different worlds

Front page on Google News was this link: Proof GOP doesn’t actually care about the poor. Now how could anyone not click that link? It called out to me ... Jack ... Jack ... Everything you thought you knew ... it was wrong Jack! Except of course that once I did click the link all I discovered was that Brian Beutler—the author of the linked editorial—is a moron and a buffoon! As Bugs Bunny would say, "What A Maroon!" Brian Beutler doesn't like facts. I'd even go so far as to say that if you ask Brian what he thinks about facts, he'd tell you they're all a bunch of lies. You can't trust facts. They lie to you. These fact things they come up with cannot be true because if they were true, why that would mean that everything liberals believe is fantasy, fairy tales, moonbeams and wishes upon a shooting star. How do I know what Brian Beutler thinks? Well, he was thoughtful enough to tell us what he thinks, and—based on those transcribed thoughts—I was able to extrapolate his entire philosophical mental pattern. I know, I know it's an impressive skill, but it's just what I do.

Brian Beutler knows that Paul Ryan is an evil fiscal conservative. Conservatives are wrong because they believe in stupid things like facts, statistics, and the lessons of history, instead of Keynesian economics and critical race theory. For this reason—and the fact that people are starting to listen to him—Paul Ryan must be discredited by any means necessary! He must be politically DESTROYED!

When you live in an echo chamber—as do all liberals of Brian Beutler's ilk—you don't have to ask how other people feel. You know how they feel. They feel angry. They feel frustrated. Things are not happening as they are supposed to. Where's the Peace on Earth? Where's the moonbeams, butterflies and where ... where ... where the hell is Tinkerbell? It's not fair! Nothing is fair. Everything is supposed to be fair! If only the people who had more would give the people who had less their extra wealth, why then, that would be fair.

Okay here's the excerpt:
Every time a Republican wins positive press by posing as a tribune for the poor, an angel gets its wings ripped off by the invisible hand of capitalism, which means today, the day after Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc unveiled a tendentious audit (PDF) of U.S. anti-poverty programs, is an exceptionally gory day.

My colleague Joan Walsh gets at why credulous coverage of Ryan et al is so frustrating:
“How many times are we going to be told that there’s a “new” Paul Ryan who really, really, really cares about the poor – and whose budget proposals consistently slash programs designed to help them.”
This is an especially large challenge because when (likely) future presidential candidates do stuff, reporters can’t just ignore them and anyhow who’s to say Ryan hasn’t had a change of heart?

Actually the evidence is right there on the first page of his new report. “Despite trillions of dollars in spending, poverty is widespread,” it reads. “In 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent.” Sounds like a huge bust, right?

Except, there’s a footnote at the end of that sentence, and it reads, “The Official Poverty Rate does not include government transfers to low-income households.”

I’m surprised Ryan included this caveat, even though it’s more honest to include it than to leave it out. Because it also reveals that his critique of federal anti-poverty programs is premised on a metric designed to create a false impression that tons of money has been wasted, when really it’s done exactly what it was supposed to.
As I noted in the title of this post, we—liberals and conservatives—seem to be living in two completely different worlds. Alright Brian, let me try to break it down for you. Paul Ryan said: “In 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent.” In response to that horrifically damning accusation you said: "[welfare] has done exactly what it was supposed to." Yes Brian, if the point of 17 trillion dollars of federal spending was supposed to ensure that nearly a sixth of all Americans are bound into poverty and which condition shall apparently be visited upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

The point—Brian—is that these people are not supporting themselves. Yes, thank you Uncle Sam, for generations of families living on government handouts. Thank you Uncle Sam, for a 90% black illegitimacy rate. Everyone understands that when people are below the poverty line the government will redistribute enough wealth to bring them back above it. That's not the argument, that's the problem! We shouldn't have one-sixth of the country making their living by clinging like leeches to the rest of us.

The point—Brian—is that they're supposed to make their own way. The point—Brian—is that needing that kind of government help ought to shame them into doing for themselves. They are supposed to be ashamed to need that help. They're supposed to feel embarrassment to the point that they finally, finally! do something, anything, for once in their completely pointless and unproductive lives. But they don't. That's the problem. The argument that Paul Ryan and conservatives are making is that giving the poor government money—with no end in sight—is the exact opposite of an incentive to find a job. Giving them welfare—for six generations—is a disincentive to ever becoming useful! WHICH IS WHY WELFARE DOESN'T WORK, BRIAN! You idiot!

No comments:

Post a Comment