The Bogus Safety Net

If you've been following the news you're certainly aware of the mass starvation and the huge number of people dying due to exposure to the elements in Texas, Florida, and the other states lacking a state income tax. Or maybe not.

Liberals are constantly telling us we need larger government to take care of the disadvantaged in our society.  Yet even in states with small, less expansive governments, people are not starving due to lack of food or dying because they have no place to live. We know that if people in Texas were starving or dying needlessly due to a lack of government funds, the mainstream media would be covering it 24/7; but instead the media just complains about the number of people who aren't insured or other non-direct measures of wellbeing.

Texas and the other small government states are proof of what we learned when Republicans reformed welfare under Bill Clinton; if people can get a free ride by having the government steal from their neighbors, they will accept the government money and get by without the bother of work; if people can't get a free ride via inter-citizen theft, then people will work to keep themselves from misery. 

The liberal position is that the poor are too incompetent or stupid to actually take care of themselves. Of course the liberals don't use the pejoratives out loud, but liberals do declare that the poor can't take care of themselves without the aid of liberal politicians funneling other people's money to them.

Given that minorities make up a disproportionately large fraction of the poor in America it's incredibly racist for liberals to declare that the poor are incapable of taking care of themselves.  But then liberals, like their KKK founding forefathers, have always believed that Blacks are incapable of taking care of themselves and need caring compassionate white folk, i.e. liberals, to watch over them.

Americans don't want to see their neighbors starve or freeze in the winter so they've always been supportive of sufficient government involvement to protect the truly needy; Ronald Reagan's safety net. 

Liberals have used the dishonest media to make it appear as though massive government spending is really just for a minimal safety net when the reality is that the objective of most welfare programs is to provide a nearly middle class lifestyle for those who don't work and an above middle class lifestyle for the government bureaucrats who oversee the machinery of government.

In reality larger government doesn't provide a safety net for the poor it redistributes income in order to improve the lifestyle of those unwilling to work by reducing the lifestyle of those who do work. Hard working families can't send their kids to good colleges without creating huge debts because so much of their earnings are siphoned off to "improve" the lives of those who don't work and the lives of the hordes of government bureaucrats who control where the money goes.

The proof of this is in the fact that even in states where "little" is done by the government to take care of the poor, the poor are not starving or dying due to lack of inexpensive medical care.

The other winners of the large government con game are the politicians who control the vast amount of money being laundered by government.  These politicians bribe voters by using the power of government to take from the folks who won't vote for liberal politicians and giving it to those who will gladly vote to legally steal money from their fellow citizens.

It's a great scheme: the lazy get a lifestyle absent the annoyances of work; government bureaucrats get high paying secure jobs with great benefits which don't require creativity or hard work; liberal politicians get the power to impose their views on everyone (plastic grocery bags are evil) -- for everyone except the people who work hard and strive to pay their own bills.

If liberals really cared about the poor, they'd give their own money to private charities, which have far lower administration costs than the government does, to maximize the benefit the truly poor receive.  Instead we see the liberals giving little of their own money, and using every tax dodge possible to minimize the taxes they pay.  That's what one would expect if liberals were really using the whole "care about the poor" mantra to cover up their scheme to redistribute wealth and increase their own personal power. 

The sad truth is that liberals want the government to control more of the money in America and they simply use the excuse that they want to help the poor to justify the centralization of economic power to the government where they have disproportionate influence.  Every penny that is taxed is a penny the person who worked hard to earn it can't decide how to spend but some politician, who did nothing to earn the penny, gets to allocate.

A key step in eliminating the modern liberal theftocracy is to get the average American to realize that the massive government is not really helping the poor so much as it is helping the politically connected to feather their nests. 

Folks need to realize that it's wrong for some Americans to be living a comfortable, albeit not luxurious, lifestyle by using the government to steal from their neighbors.

We need to get the average voter to realize that politicians like Obama don't care about the voters or the poor; rather Obama and his ilk pretend to care in order to garner more personal power by taking more of working Americans hard earned money.   If Obama cared about the poor he'd be campaigning to improve the quality of education; instead he campaigns to protect the pensions of teacher union members.

To win future elections conservatives have to be able to convince the electorate of the truth; conservatives care about Americans, have confidence in the abilities of Americans of all backgrounds, and want to help all Americans to succeed while liberals care about power and will gladly pretend to care in order to have more control over Americans.

For more of tom's rants see obvioustalk.blogspot.com

If you've been following the news you're certainly aware of the mass starvation and the huge number of people dying due to exposure to the elements in Texas, Florida, and the other states lacking a state income tax. Or maybe not.

Liberals are constantly telling us we need larger government to take care of the disadvantaged in our society.  Yet even in states with small, less expansive governments, people are not starving due to lack of food or dying because they have no place to live. We know that if people in Texas were starving or dying needlessly due to a lack of government funds, the mainstream media would be covering it 24/7; but instead the media just complains about the number of people who aren't insured or other non-direct measures of wellbeing.

Texas and the other small government states are proof of what we learned when Republicans reformed welfare under Bill Clinton; if people can get a free ride by having the government steal from their neighbors, they will accept the government money and get by without the bother of work; if people can't get a free ride via inter-citizen theft, then people will work to keep themselves from misery. 

The liberal position is that the poor are too incompetent or stupid to actually take care of themselves. Of course the liberals don't use the pejoratives out loud, but liberals do declare that the poor can't take care of themselves without the aid of liberal politicians funneling other people's money to them.

Given that minorities make up a disproportionately large fraction of the poor in America it's incredibly racist for liberals to declare that the poor are incapable of taking care of themselves.  But then liberals, like their KKK founding forefathers, have always believed that Blacks are incapable of taking care of themselves and need caring compassionate white folk, i.e. liberals, to watch over them.

Americans don't want to see their neighbors starve or freeze in the winter so they've always been supportive of sufficient government involvement to protect the truly needy; Ronald Reagan's safety net. 

Liberals have used the dishonest media to make it appear as though massive government spending is really just for a minimal safety net when the reality is that the objective of most welfare programs is to provide a nearly middle class lifestyle for those who don't work and an above middle class lifestyle for the government bureaucrats who oversee the machinery of government.

In reality larger government doesn't provide a safety net for the poor it redistributes income in order to improve the lifestyle of those unwilling to work by reducing the lifestyle of those who do work. Hard working families can't send their kids to good colleges without creating huge debts because so much of their earnings are siphoned off to "improve" the lives of those who don't work and the lives of the hordes of government bureaucrats who control where the money goes.

The proof of this is in the fact that even in states where "little" is done by the government to take care of the poor, the poor are not starving or dying due to lack of inexpensive medical care.

The other winners of the large government con game are the politicians who control the vast amount of money being laundered by government.  These politicians bribe voters by using the power of government to take from the folks who won't vote for liberal politicians and giving it to those who will gladly vote to legally steal money from their fellow citizens.

It's a great scheme: the lazy get a lifestyle absent the annoyances of work; government bureaucrats get high paying secure jobs with great benefits which don't require creativity or hard work; liberal politicians get the power to impose their views on everyone (plastic grocery bags are evil) -- for everyone except the people who work hard and strive to pay their own bills.

If liberals really cared about the poor, they'd give their own money to private charities, which have far lower administration costs than the government does, to maximize the benefit the truly poor receive.  Instead we see the liberals giving little of their own money, and using every tax dodge possible to minimize the taxes they pay.  That's what one would expect if liberals were really using the whole "care about the poor" mantra to cover up their scheme to redistribute wealth and increase their own personal power. 

The sad truth is that liberals want the government to control more of the money in America and they simply use the excuse that they want to help the poor to justify the centralization of economic power to the government where they have disproportionate influence.  Every penny that is taxed is a penny the person who worked hard to earn it can't decide how to spend but some politician, who did nothing to earn the penny, gets to allocate.

A key step in eliminating the modern liberal theftocracy is to get the average American to realize that the massive government is not really helping the poor so much as it is helping the politically connected to feather their nests. 

Folks need to realize that it's wrong for some Americans to be living a comfortable, albeit not luxurious, lifestyle by using the government to steal from their neighbors.

We need to get the average voter to realize that politicians like Obama don't care about the voters or the poor; rather Obama and his ilk pretend to care in order to garner more personal power by taking more of working Americans hard earned money.   If Obama cared about the poor he'd be campaigning to improve the quality of education; instead he campaigns to protect the pensions of teacher union members.

To win future elections conservatives have to be able to convince the electorate of the truth; conservatives care about Americans, have confidence in the abilities of Americans of all backgrounds, and want to help all Americans to succeed while liberals care about power and will gladly pretend to care in order to have more control over Americans.

For more of tom's rants see obvioustalk.blogspot.com