UPDATE --- 10/18/2012: Gov't reports welfare costs have skyrocketed to one Trillion Dollars.
The plan Democrats developed to obtain permanent control of the government is insideous. The Poor are the device they plan to use to accomplish their objectives. Politically Correct speech codes were developed primarily to indemnify the Poor and other Democrat dependents from criticism and investigation. Although this plan is ostensibly counter-intuitive due to the bankruptcy aspect, it will come to pass unless breeding by those receiving public assistance is curtailed. The Cloward Pivens strategy relies upon a voting majority formed from citizens dependent upon government for all, or most, of their needs. America Poor are the pawns in this scheme.
*** Those who are physically incapable of earning a living, veterans in particular - are owed our assistance. Vets alone have earned our gratitude and tax payer help. Other disabled people are also owed assistance - after their families are unable to assist them. All others so called Poor - hold no claim upon the tax payers wealth. The money paid out to the indolent robs the Veteran of the assistance he/she is owed. Veteran Affairs perpetually suffers from a lack of funding. This misappropriation of dollars, must be corrected. ***
Karl Marx drafted a political philosophy specifically to appeal to the Poor. John Engles did the writing. Marx was a lazy, petty and jealous personality with a Fecal Touch. Engles had "some"credibility – something Marx lacked and it was Engle’s standing that enabled Marx’s Communist Manifesto to thrive. That philosophy resulted in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others. Those regimes murdered 200 million human beings – in the pursuit of Fairness. Adolph Hitler did this too - add another 50 million. Pol Pot appealed to the poor in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge - add another couple million more deaths. History is replete with suffering, death, and destruction – all initiated to help the Poor and expand government control - to confiscate wealth/property from the producers and give that wealth to the consumers (Poor). Another lesson exists in history - if all the deaths and other costs that arose from political strife - dedicated to helping the poor were summed, it would not matter to the Poor or change their perspective and demands. Helping the Poor assures the problems associated with poverty intensify and the Poor's demands expand.
When an ambitious politician has limited skill, if they cannot appeal to a majority, and they fail working within the political system available, those politicians resort to agitating the Poor. A potentially violent Poor is necessary to implement a political philosophy that confiscates wealth to bribe votes. History contains numerous examples of why societies fear of a violent Poor – or a politically empowered Poor.
The Roman Empire was destroyed and Western Civilization driven into a Dark Age by servicing the demands of The Poor. Food and Circus was the means used to placate the Poor. Roman politicians provided bread and entertainment to all their citizens to quiet the masses. The money spent servicing the Poor was not available to defend Rome’s borders, and positively influence prosperity for the empire. Rome had a normal wealth strata: poor, kinda poor, middle class, kinda rich, and rich. These five divisions remain and can be found in all “Democratic” societies – at least initially. These divisions provide mobility upwards and downwards if liberty is THE fundamental objective and integrated into the government policy making.
Liberty is a RISKY BUSINESS. Risk and Liberty are inseparable. The freedom to fail is the operative, and essential principle. Failure must be equally available for liberty to exist.Any attempt to reduce failure / risk comes at the direct expense of liberty. The lessons regarding this principle are inexplicably fleeting. For reasons unknown, new generations of politicians refuse to acknowledge the liberty / risk relationship. Those politicians consider themselves able to negotiate separating the inseparable. Every attempt has failed. Freedom and risk are each a side of the same coin. Zero-Sum.
If giving the Poor what they demand solved the problems of the Poor, (and society) society would have solved them all.Every person possesses different abilities; and inabilities. Those traits influence a person’s behaviors.They adopt behaviors that reflect their abilities and inabilities/traits. Those traits and resulting behaviors are what most often predicate success in life. Not Zero-Sum.
The Poor have historically shown they possess the same traits of their Poor predecessors. Most often - the Poor are: less ambitious - lazy, less willing to expend the effort required to obtain their stated goals – get rich quick, less willing to work for long-term objectives – immediate gratification, and, less intelligent. Like liberty and risk, these traits and the resulting outcomes are “generally” also inseparable. They are analogous and complimentary or detrimental. These traits lead to poverty; and assure poverty remains. Additionally, the Poor are magnificently ungrateful. The demands of the Poor are irascible and relentless. The Poor remain unsatisfied no matter what is given them. Unbelievably, the Poor’s grievances increase, proportionally, with the substance provided them. This phenomenon was noted by Margret Sanger in the early 1900s. Sanger is a folk hero to Progressive Democrat politicians and she is credited with founding Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a rabid advocate for eugenics – a practice I support when properly channeled and constructed.
In Sanger’s 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she attacked charity as counterproductive, and dangerous, for helping the poor to produce even more “human waste.” (Waste was Sanger’s term for the children of the poor.) Sanger also stated, “Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease.” And, “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”
Verifiable and consistent outcomes are associated with a limited intellect - the Poor/stupid are unable to discern their behaviors are primarily responsible for their complaints. A lack of responsibility (personal responsibility included) is most often causal for poverty. Irresponsible people refuse to adopt the behaviors that lead to success. The Poor prefer blaming their failures on: birth right, bad circumstances, oppressive forces, and luck. Ostensibly, these are forces beyond the Poor’s control. The Poor remain poor due to a conscious decision, and inaction, (modifying personal behaviors creates more work for the Poor). Politicians seeking to channel support from the Poor must alter reality and advance the Poor’s reasoning/narrative to gain the Poor’s attention. Implementing policies that transfer wealth to purchase the Poor's votes and improve the political viability of the Poor’s sponsors – the Democrat Party - is the chosen path - CLoward/Pivens. Bribery is the operative function. Ergo, responsible people improve their station and escape poverty incrementally. The Poor refuse to so do.
Historically, the Poor have shown remarkable consistency in their greed, dissatisfaction, and willingness to rain violence, mayhem and murder to punish others more affluent than they. The poor claim violence is the ONLY tool available. Violence is chosen by the less intelligent beacuse they are unable to develop a peaceful solution, or the peaceful solution does not appease their demands in a time frame meaningful to them. Potential violence is used by the Progressive Democrats as a weapon to intimidate the self sufficient. Violence is the implied threat - - riots, looting, unrest, etc... should the poor not get what they demand. This double edge sword is thus applied against the responsible and self sufficient to confiscate their wealth – “voluntarily”. The threat of violence compels the self sufficient to accept higher taxes to appease the Poor. Democrat politicians use the tax dollars to buy votes and expand government control.
The promise Democrats make to the self sufficient is peace and safety - violence will be avoided if they agree to part with their property in service to the Poor. This promise is a blatant lie, and history proves no amount of transferred wealth will sate the demands of the Poor, because the Poor are incapable of retaining wealth or growing their wealth. Short sightedness, born of a limited intellect, results in the Poor spending their wealth away on products that deliver an immediately gratifying or display of affluence (showing off) experience. Margret Sanger’s opinions on poverty’s causality and how to remedy the complaints of the Poor should be considered – if not her radical methods and words.
To understand poverty and the Poor – defining poverty is essential. What is poor? Subjectively, poor/poverty is a perspective. Many people with limited financial assets live happy productive lives. They view themselves as rich in love, contentment, and family. The political definition of the poor includes people who lack the assets to sustain themselves in an environment. Poor is also a comparative term. The Poor in one location are not poor compared to another location. America's "Poor" live a lavish lifestyle compared to the Poor in India and Africa - 3rd world. American laws prevent The Poor from being poor whatsoever. America's Poor MAY have a lower quality of life, but the government provides programs that more than adequately cover their basic needs. The term "Quality of Life" is transmogrified in government speak to infer poverty. It is another PC word game played.
The Poor sit front and center in the Democrat's policy making. Democrats label the Poor “Middle-Class” because the Poor do not like being referred to (Nor do they actually qualify) as Poor! Democrats have created euphemisms that describe their Poor. The Poor are called: At Risk, Working Americans/Families, and Working Poor. These terms are acceptable to the Poor because it implies the poor work and does not Stigmatize them as POOR! Most chose to not work or their behaviors render them unemployable - which is why they are poor.
The exact measure of poverty that defines Poor is unclear - and will remain unclear. Democrats refuse to determine, or permit a determination of, poverty = a mean level of income and property ownership that defines poverty. The definition of poverty must remain nebulous to enable Democrats a perpetual political argument. When tasked to determine a "Poverty Point" the Health and Human Services agency could not (refused to) provide one. Being employed, receiving government subsidies, private sector subsidies, did not disqualify a person from being classified as Poor!
*** Owning a home, car (or two cars), a color TV - or several TVs, cell phone, A/C, household conveniences, and other trappings of a middle class status did not lessen a person's poverty according to HHS. The exact poverty point was purposely avoided. According to HHS, Poverty is circumstantial and open to interpretation.
The term poverty/poor were honed over decades by Progressive Democrats to specifically describe people who lack a Quality of Life as defined by Democrats. This is done to rile up their emotions - and the emotions of the self sufficient. The emotions of the self sufficient are a fear of violence from the poor. Progressive actively work to inflame the passions of the poor by attacking the wealthy - and the presumed easier / superior life - of others whose behaviors accrued more money than the poor. Regardless of the poor's financial wealth, or the amount given them to ameliorate their poverty, the poor are never satisfied - or grateful. The use of violence to solve problems exacerbates the Poor’s other failures and creates new problems for the Poor. The emotions of greed, envy, jealousy are the three central motivations for the Poor. Those emotions are traits that work to derail a desire to obtain long term, consistent, employment. Democrats enable the Poor by assuring them their poverty is not their fault - circumstances and evil rich people conspire to keep them poor. Democrats provide the Poor a permanent excuse to not change their lives/behaviors.
Servicing the needs (demands) of the poor has caused untold strife and harm to societies around the globe. Communism is the most extreme example of politicians appealing to the wants of the Poor to obtain absolute control of government. Appealing to the Poor lead to the Russian revolution - ditto Mao's Communist China, Pol Pots Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba, all arose by politicians appealing to the Poor. The violent nature of the Poor is what accomplished these revolutions. Whether the violence is implied or actuated, violence sits as the causal and applied mechanism used to steal wealth and control. Permanently controlling government is the goal of Progressive Democrat politicians.
The threat of violence or unrest should the Poor's demands not be sated is ubiquitous. The riots of the 1960s are what prompted the initial War on Poverty. The programs and stipends offered to the poor since the 1960s have increased substantially. The percentage of people defined as Poor remains unchanged since that time - in part this ratio is owed to unrestricted breeding.
***Were those 1960s riots planned – like Fast and Furious? Increasingly, since the discovery of the motivations and subsequent actions taken in Fast and Furious, Democrat policy making must be examined to determine if Democrats created a self-fulfilling prophecy – acting to create predicted circumstances to argue for political outcomes. ***
A web query reveals how much is available to the single Poor parent with two children. As long as the parent did not earn over $20,000, the government benefits were profuse. Nearly $70,000 dollars is available if an applicant worked the system - all legal. The combined resources came from State and Federal direct payments, section 8 housing subsidies, social security income for disabled children (ADHD, OCD, ADD, HDTV, DDT, DOA, etc.) any learning "disability" netted the family almost two thousand dollars a month @ child. Any child can receive this diagnosis - it provides an income stream for the family and the person providing the diagnosis - doubling the tax payer obligations. It also excuses a child's innate stupidity. When the indirect benefits (free: lunches, day care, clothing allowances...) and the direct benefits were summed- $67,000 dollars are available to a Poor parent with two children working part time. A Poor person not earning the $20,000 would receive $47,000 - not bad for doing nothing. This income does NOT include benefits available from the private sector. Remember, no property assets disqualify a person for these benefits. This is why seeming well off people collect welfare subsidies.
There are no ethical or moral restraints to Democrat actions. Per Marx: "By Any Means Necessary". Democrats stoop to use the religious values of the self sufficient against them. Democrats object to ANY Christian connotation in government - except this one. Democrats assert religious people are obliged, by their faith, to help a person in need and permanently assume the role of benefactor/tax payer. It's a corrupt and inaccurate interpretation of a Christian tenent, but Democrats do not care. They have found Christians susceptible to this attack. Democrats will apply any device and/or pressure to accomplish their goals.
Servicing needs that arise from chosen behaviors - behaviors (that never abate) due to irresponsible and indolent choices; are not how most people view assistance. Temporary assistance is all a person is due. Society is not served with prolonged, institutional indolence / dependence. That practice assures the tax payer is an indentured servant of the government/Poor. Remarkably, Democrats insult and slander the tax payer for not giving enough to sate the demands of Democrat politicians and their dependents.
Compassion is owed the compassionate. A majority of the poor are not compassionate and their behaviors clearly reveal their animus towards their fellowman and their own families.
The most glaring example of how inconsiderate, selfish, greedy, and stupid the poor are, is the wide-spread practice of creating children while receiving public assistance. No sane, compassionate, or lucid person will purposely add to their burdens while failing to sustain themselves. Adding children to an environment, incapable of providing for itself, staggers the imagination and is evidence of child abuse. Democrat policy making encourages this rapacious behavior and seeks to punish and slander any opposition - unbelievable. Unrestricted breeding is the greatest enemy this nation faces. The Poor will eventually breed in numbers sufficient to install a permanent Democrat majority and thereby steal the wealth of the productive – legally. This is the goal of Democrats. Why Democrats who demand birth control for all and abortion on demand are curiously silent when the behaviors of the Poor are considered is telling.
Progressive politicians appear as dull-witted as the indolent they serve - but they are not. They belong to cabal that has tirelessly worked for decades to achieve a nefarious end - a totalitarian State. The end game for Progressive Democrats is to bankrupt the nation. Bankruptcy comes once the all the wealth of the Rich is confiscated and the amount stolen is insufficient to pay the bills- bills Democrats wrote to service the demands of the poor/dependents. Entitlement payouts are the largest segment of the federal budget and Progressives work to expand these each year - See Update! Progressive walk merrily hand in hand with their dependents on the road to financial ruin and ultimately revolution. Once Progressives achieve their goals, neither the poor nor the government will have funds sufficient to cover their expenses. Only then, will bribing the poor finally end - the Poor are ignorantly unaware once the money dries up - their demands will not be met. A totalitarian State does not suffer complaints or complainers. Stalin, Mao, and others dealt harshly with the Poor - once the Poor had fulfilled their purpose. The Poor were Lenin's "Useful Idiots". Democrat objectives will bring horrific suffering – much more than curtailing the behaviors that lead to institutional poverty. The Poor are neither truly poor or under-represented. They are people who subsist on the wealth earned by others. Rather than express gratitude for all that is done on their behalf, they are churlish and insatiable in their demands. Since the Poor are incapable of negotiating life without government assistance, the Poor, at a minimum, should be compelled to live within limits that do not increase or expand their claims upon the tax payer. Their self esteem should not be protected, Anyone dependent upon another - unless physically incapable - should feel ashamed they are not self sufficient.