Birthrates and Welfare States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 22nd, 2013

History 101

Birth Control and Abortion hurt the Welfare State because Babies become Taxpayers

People typically have fewer children during bad economic times.  Because you have to feed and clothe kids.  Which is very hard to do during bad economic times.  Especially if you lost your job during a period of high unemployment.  Such as the Great Depression.  Or if you’re going through a period of high inflation.  Like during the Seventies.  We can see this if we look at the birthrate over the years.

Number of Children per Woman R1

(source: Population Reference Bureau)

Bad economic times (Great Depression) fewer births.  High inflation (the Seventies) fewer births.  Of course, there was something else happening during the Seventies.  Which followed the Sexual Revolution.  Women were having more sex outside of marriage.  But they were using birth control and recently legalized abortion to avoid having children.  Women were liberated.  The feminists were moving into careers once reserved for men.  And because they were having careers they were not being stay-at-home mothers raising a family.

Also during the Seventies there was the zero population growth movement.  Among many other movements.  As the hippies turned antiestablishment.  And anti-capitalist.  Preferring a communal life.  Where there was no greed or profits.  Where everyone was equal and had an equal share.  Like the communists enjoyed.  Or, rather, suffered.  The zero population growth movement protested against having babies.  And the threat they posed to the limited resources of the earth.  So they were quite happy to see the birthrate fall below the replacement birthrate (about 2.1 children per woman in the United States).  Because below this rate future generations will be smaller than previous generations.  Which will burden the limited resources of the earth less.  But it created a big problem for those who wanted a large socialist state to provide cradle to the grave welfare.  For babies become taxpayers.

Because of the War on Poverty it takes Two Incomes to raise a Family Today

We just emerged from a government shutdown that ended with an agreement to raise the debt ceiling.  Why?  Because they can’t raise tax rates high enough to pay for all of the government’s spending.  At least not without putting most everyone below the poverty line after taxes.  Which makes that declining birthrate a big problem.  For the fall in the birthrate coincided with the expansion of the welfare state in the Sixties.  As can be seen in the explosion in welfare spending following LBJ’s launching of his War on Poverty.

Total Welfare Spending 1950 - 2010 R2

(source: The Heritage Foundation)

So just as women were having fewer babies so following generations would be smaller LBJ’s Great Society gave us a new expanding welfare state.  That is, once our tax base began to grow smaller with each subsequent generation federal expenditures were growing larger with each subsequent generation.  Resulting in higher tax rates on the smaller tax base to pay for it.  And massive new borrowings to pay what our taxes won’t.  As the government took more of our earnings away median household income stagnated.

Federal Spending and Median Income

(source: The Heritage Foundation)

If you’ve ever wondered why we can’t raise a family on one income these days this is why.  It’s the growth of federal spending.  Paid for with a growth in tax revenue.  Leaving us less money to raise our families.  Requiring that second income.  This is what the Great Society gave us.  And it’s what birth control and abortion gave us.  But it gets worse.

This Year Adult Incontinence Pants outsold Baby Diapers in Japan for the First Time

The Sexual Revolution gave us a baby bust generation.  Following a baby boom generation.  Giving us an aging population.  Where more people are leaving the workforce than are entering it.  So more people are consuming taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) than are paying taxes.  Causing a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old.  So an aging population makes it even harder to raise a family.  Especially for the young just starting their families.  Because of the higher tax rates on a shrinking workforce required to pay for that aging population.  Which can lead to worse things than a collapse of the welfare state (see Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex? by Abigail Haworth posted 10/19/2013 on The Guardian)

Japan’s under-40s appear to be losing interest in conventional relationships. Millions aren’t even dating, and increasing numbers can’t be bothered with sex. For their government, “celibacy syndrome” is part of a looming national catastrophe. Japan already has one of the world’s lowest birth rates. Its population of 126 million, which has been shrinking for the past decade, is projected to plunge a further one-third by 2060…

Fewer babies were born here in 2012 than any year on record. (This was also the year, as the number of elderly people shoots up, that adult incontinence pants outsold baby nappies in Japan for the first time.) Kunio Kitamura, head of the JFPA, claims the demographic crisis is so serious that Japan “might eventually perish into extinction”.

This is the zero population growth movement on steroids.  The Republicans in the United States shut down the government in an attempt to curtail federal spending.  As the public debt is approaching 100% of GDP.  Very dangerous territory to be in.  But if you think that’s bad it’s far worse in Japan.  As their public debt is approximately 214% of GDP.  To support a massive welfare state.  In a country where the taxpayer is fast becoming an endangered species.

This is the ultimate end of any democracy that learned it could vote itself the treasury.  As taxes rise people cut back on their spending.  And a big cost item is children.  So we have declining birthrates in developed countries with expansive welfare states.  And immigration problems.  Immigrants who come for those generous state benefits.  And governments that want to grant them citizenship.  To make them taxpayers.  To make up for that declining birthrate.  And prevent their own extinction.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Political Promises, Lies and the Advancement of an Political Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 11th, 2013

Politics 101

Government Helps the Poor by Keeping them Poor so they Remain Dependent on Government

Politicians lie.  Everyone knows this.  It’s a running joke in comedy movies and television programs.  And a common plotline in dramas.  Because politicians will say and promise anything to get elected.  Which is their primary and only objective.  Winning an election.  And the needs and wants of the people are secondary.  Things they can easily brush aside once ascending to elected office.  Because they don’t really care about the people.  At least, they don’t care for them as much as they care for themselves.

And once they’re in office the promises keep coming.  To help them win the next election.  And to keep the size of government growing.  As well as the amount of taxes they collect.  Which gives them wealth.  And power.  The ultimate goal in running for elected office.  That’s why they sneer at the concept of limited government.  And tax cuts.  Because the less government we have the less wealth and power they enjoy.  For if we really are the self-reliant people of the Founding what need do we have for an expanding government?

Of course the answer to that question is we would have little need for an expanding government.  For we can earn our pay and take care of ourselves.  And our families.  The way Americans did before Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama.  Men who do not like that independent spirit.  And will use a host of arguments to condemn it.  It’s not fair being their favorite.  Because who can argue against being fair?  So everything they do is about leveling the playing field.  To make sure the rich pay their fair share.  And to help the little guy.  By making him dependent on government.  And perpetually poor.  So they will remain dependent on government.  So they can keep taking care of these poor.

Government rarely chooses Tax-Cutting for Stimulus as Cutting Taxes doesn’t Increase the Size of Government

LBJ declared a War on Poverty.  Justifying a huge increase in federal spending starting the Sixties.  And after spending untold billions to eradicate poverty what did we get?  Not much.  We still have poverty.  And the government spends more with each passing year to alleviate the suffering of the impoverished.  But it never goes away.  Poverty.  And the government nurtures it.  Protects it.  By making it more attractive to stay on a meager government assistance instead of going to work.  And building a career.  Doing something you love.  While leaving your mark on the world.  Instead we get ever increasing federal spending.  And a permanent underclass the government can be savior to.  You see they don’t want to win the War on Poverty.  Because if they win it then we won’t need them anymore.

The greatest killer of poverty is a job.  People gainfully employed can provide themselves food, shelter, etc.  They can have clean drinking water.  And heat in the winter.  It’s only the unemployed who look at food, shelter and heat as sought after luxuries.  For people with jobs are those self-reliant people.  Who provide tax dollars instead of consuming them.  This is no secret.  So it would follow that the best thing to do during a recession is to make it as easy as possible to create jobs.  You do that by lowering taxes.  And cutting regulations.  Not by raising taxes.  Or adding regulatory costs.  And you sure don’t pass a quasi national health care plan like Obamacare.

Also, history has shown that Keynesian stimulus spending does not pull economies out of recession.  If it did Ronald Reagan would not have won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter.  And Europe would not be in a sovereign debt crisis.  Keynesians know this.  But they can’t pass up the opportunity to increase federal spending.  So they promise lower unemployment rates and higher GDP numbers if only Congress does the right thing and “pass this stimulus bill.”  And when it doesn’t work they have two predictable explanations.  They didn’t spend enough.  And that even they didn’t realize how bad their predecessor destroyed the economy.  Calling the recession du jour the worst since the Great Depression.  Covering their lies about ending the recession with statements like “things would have been worse if we didn’t act.”  And though they didn’t reduce unemployment they’ll make incredulous claims like “we saved 800,000 jobs with this bold action.”  Predictable.  For their primary objective isn’t to end any recession.  It is to exploit the crisis to advance their agenda.  Basically, increasing the size of government.  And we know this because there are two ways to put more money into people’s pockets to stimulate the economy.  You can cut taxes so they have more money to spend.  Or you can tax, borrow and print money so the government can spend more.  Very rarely do they ever choose the tax-cutting route.  Because the tax-cutting way works against their agenda of increasing the size of government.

Politicians Promise and Lie to the Young and Naïve to Advance a Political Agenda

And speaking of Obamacare President Obama promised the American people that if you liked your private health insurance plan you could keep it.  And the cost of that health care plan would go down.  Because they had a massive convoluted health care plan that was going to give health care to everyone.  Increase the quality of health care from what it is now.  And it was going to be less expensive.  Which was a lie.  Because you can’t have more of anything for less money.  Life just doesn’t work that way.  As they implement Obamacare its taxes and regulations are forcing business owners to push people from full-time to part-time.  So they aren’t forced into providing mandated health insurance plans.  Some even have no choice but to drop their health care coverage for all of their employees.  Because their health care costs went up.  Not down.  And they’re predicting doctor shortages.  Because the only cost savings they can get is by forcing people to work for less in the health care industry.  So they’re leaving.  Under Obamacare there will be higher costs, longer wait times, rationing, denial of services and lower quality.  Everything they promised wouldn’t happen.  And everything critics said would happen.  So are the proponents of Obamacare just so utterly ignorant?  Or were they lying through their teeth because they just wanted to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy?  With an agenda to increase the size of government one has to go with lying through their teeth.

President Obama blamed George W. Bush for the world hating America.  When he became president he no longer projected American power.  Instead he wanted to talk to our enemies.  To negotiate with them.  He even dropped words from official usage.  Like the War on Terror.  To make our enemies like us.  Because people like people who aren’t bullies.  And that was what George W. Bush was.  A bully.  So President Obama warmed up to the Islamic world.  So the Islamic world would warm up to us.  Even announcing withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan early in his administration.  Ending the war on you-know-what.  So he could use that money for Obamacare.  Promising the American people the world would be a safer place.  Even passing on an opportunity to help overthrow the government in Iran.  America’s greatest enemy.  Instead, he helped people overthrow a couple of our allies.  Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  And Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  Who since the Iraq war had been an ally in the War on Terror.  And the thanks for this new Islam-friendly American policy?  They killed our ambassador in Benghazi along with three other Americans.  Al Qaeda is now in Libya.  And the Muslim Brotherhood is in Egypt.  And it looks like al Qaeda is now in Syria.  Another enemy of the United States the people were trying to overthrow that President Obama chose not to help.  The Middle East may burn now.  Making the world a more dangerous place.  But the president got what he wanted.  All that money we were spending overseas they can now spend at home.  Rewarding friends and campaign contributors.  As well as buying votes.

And now they are calling for tighter gun control measures.  Greater background checks.  And a national gun register.  To protect the kids they say.  So another Newtown massacre doesn’t happen.  Even though they themselves will admit that every measure they proposed thus far would not have stopped the shooter at Newton.  Aurora.  Tucson.  Virginia Tech.  Or any other shooting where some mentally unsound person killed random strangers.  These people didn’t kill because guns made them kill.  They killed because they were sick.  And we didn’t protect society by institutionalizing these people.  The only thing we could have done to stop them once they started shooting we didn’t do.  Having someone armed in these ‘gun-free’ zones.  For these sick people shoot unarmed innocents until someone with a gun arrives on the scene to shoot back.  So arming teachers may save children from another Newtown.  While everything they proposed thus far will do absolutely nothing to prevent a future Newton.  Yet they press for further restrictions on gun ownership.  And if it won’t make children safer one wonders why they want to exploit these shootings to advance their anti-gun-ownership agenda.  As they are interested in acquiring greater wealth and power one would have to assume it’s the power.  Perhaps making them feel more all-powerful if they can actually nullify the Second Amendment.

So politicians promise and lie to advance an agenda.  Which is why the young typically vote for those who promise and lie so much.  The liberal Democrats.  As the young are naïve and easy to lie to.  While older people tend to vote Republican.  For they are older.  They have heard all of the promises and lies before.  And they’re wiser.  Which comes with age.  Which is why the liberal Democrats get them while they’re young. For it’s hard to keep them once they gain knowledge and experience.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT134: “There will always be poor and oppressed people because someone has to vote for liberal Democrats.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Liberal Democrats would Not Like an America without Poor and Oppressed People

In the anti-nuclear power movie The China Syndrome Jack Lemmon’s character wanted to warn everyone about his dangerous nuclear power plant.  He was a control room operator at the plant.  During one event there was a vibration.  The reactor shut down (SCRAM) safely.  But Lemmon’s character did some investigating and found that some safety reports had been falsified.  And in his quest to publicize this fact people died.  So he did the only thing he could.  He locked himself inside the control room at the nuclear power plant.  Requested that the characters played by Michael Douglas and Jane Fonda come down to put him on the air live.  And threatened to create a nuclear catastrophe himself if that didn’t happen.  That’s right, as dangerous as that reactor was he did NOT shut it down.

Odd, really.  He threatened to cause what he was trying to prevent.  Why?  Well, consider what would have happened if he did everything he did with one change.  Instead of threatening his own nuclear catastrophe he shut down that reactor.  So it was safe and could not harm anyone.  If he did that what do you think would have happened?  No one would have brought that news crew (Douglas and Fonda) to the plant.  And plant security would have just broken into the control room and subdued Lemmon.  But because he left the reactor hot and dangerous they didn’t break in and subdue him.  And they brought in that news crew.  Because his threat of causing a nuclear catastrophe gave him power.  While a safe and shutdown reactor gave him no power.

So what do we learn from this?  Sometimes the thing you’re fighting against is the very thing that gives you power.  A purpose.  A reason for getting out of bed in the morning.  Something that gives you a job.  Something that pays the bills.  And it’s just not disgruntled nuclear power plant operators.  Imagine a world with no crime.  If there was no crime we wouldn’t need any police officers.  Something police officers wouldn’t like.  Just as firefighters wouldn’t like a world without fires or accidents.  Just as cardiologists would not like a world without heart disease.  Just as environmentalists would not like a world without global warming.  Just as advocates of affirmative action would not like a world without discrimination.  Just as liberal Democrats would not like an America without poor and oppressed people.

The Poor and Oppressed are a Favorite Constituency of the Federal Government

The more horrible the things people are fighting against the greater are the need for these people.  The Left makes use of this strategy all of the time.  Falling test scores means we need to spend more on education.  As in hiring more teachers.  And paying them more.  This works the other way, too.  When municipalities are running budget deficits because of costly public sector contracts calling for high pay and generous benefits they place a new millage on the ballot.  And warn the people that if they don’t vote ‘yes’ for these higher taxes they will have no choice but to increase the number of rapes, murders and assaults.  As well as increase the number of deaths from fires, heart attacks in the home and car accidents.  Because if the people vote ‘no’ they will lay off police officers and firefighters.  Instead of renegotiating those contracts that are causing their financial problems.  No.  It’s never cutting back on the things that are bankrupting their cities.  It’s always putting the fear of God into their electorate.  So the public sector workers can maintain their generous pay and benefits.

Of course some will say that our teachers, police officers and firefighters don’t get paid that much.  If that’s true then they belong to some real crappy unions.  Because you join a union to get better pay and better benefits.  And you pay union dues for the union’s help in getting better pay and better benefits.  Also, if we didn’t already pay them very well you would know what their pay and benefits were during these millage requests.  For it sure would help their argument for higher pay if most people made more than they did.  Because, let’s face it, we need good teachers, police officers and firefighters.  If we paid them less than most other people everyone would feel guilty and vote ‘yes’ without hesitation.  But during these millage requests they don’t make public their current pay and benefit schedule.  And it’s hard to find this information online.  Because that’s ‘personal’.  Even though we pay them with public money.  Which should tell you something.  They’re paid better than most people.  Because they’re asking for more without telling us how much they currently make.  For it is hard to get sympathy for your pay level when you make more than most other people.

It’s no secret that government workers get better pay and benefit packages than people in the private sector.  Especially in the federal government.  Where federal employment grows by leaps and bounds every year.  And they create ever new programs to fight against something.  So they can keep hiring more people into the federal bureaucracy.  To reward friends and cronies.  And to endear a growing federal government to ever more people.  So they will continuously help to support and promote that sprawling bureaucracy.  Through their votes.  And by making as many people as possible dependent on the government.  Making the poor and oppressed a favorite constituency of the federal government.  As it has been for a very long time.  Despite the numerous battles to end poverty and oppression.

The Liberal Democrat Answer to Poverty is Not a Job but a Government Entitlement

JFK was a tax-cutter.  Just like Ronald Reagan.  They both believed that you had to create a business-friendly environment to create jobs.  Because if a business did well it grew and hired more people.  That’s why both JFK and Ronald Reagan had strong economic growth and low unemployment during their presidencies.  And they each brought in a lot of tax revenue into Washington.  Even with their low tax rates.  So low tax rates are good.  They help businesses grow.  They help people get jobs.  They lower the price of consumer goods so people can buy more for less.  And they bring in more revenue to the government to help those who need help.  Of course liberal Democrats hate this.  Because if everyone is doing well there is no need for all their agencies and programs.  Or them.

Shortly after the assassination of JFK things changed.  LBJ became president.  Who was a big liberal Democrat.  Who declared unconditional war on poverty.  This was in 1964.  The plan was to explode the size of the federal government.  Which is what he did when he gave us the Great Society.  The war on poverty would become one of America’s longest war.  Longer than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Longer than the Vietnam War.  Even longer than the Cold War.  The war on poverty continues to this day.  Requiring ever more government agencies.  And programs.  Yet they’ve all failed to end poverty.  Proven by the fact that every generation of liberal Democrats running for office is an advocate for the poor and oppressed who have no voice but theirs.

The liberal Democrat answer to poverty is not a job but a government entitlement.  Because jobs lead to lower unemployment.  And less purpose for a liberal Democrat.  Liberals don’t want jobs and low unemployment.  They want high taxes and high unemployment.  So they can matter.  And make a difference.  So they can have a cushy job with high pay and generous benefits.  So they attack tax cuts.  They attack any lowering of regulatory costs.  And anything else that would help businesses create jobs.  Which would take the poor and oppressed away from them.  They don’t want people to be rugged and independent.  They want them needy and dependent.  And they want as many people as possible to be needy and dependent.  Even if it leads to a little rioting.  Especially if it leads to a little rioting.  For a little level of danger can be useful.  As it can be in a nuclear power plant in an anti-nuclear power movie.  Because it’s very hard to get taxpayers to vote for people that want to increase your taxes and make your lives more costly.  While some liberals genuinely care about making people’s lives better many more are like Jack Lemmon in The China Syndrome.  Who understand that they must maintain a certain level of poverty and oppression in the nation.  Or they will have no power.  As no one will vote for them.  Because if you’re in the business of ending poverty and oppression you need a certain level of poverty and oppression to fight against.  Always.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #84: “The bigger and more complex government gets the more unintended the consequences.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2011

Prohibition had Popular Support from Wives, Progressives and Organized Crime

The Progressive movement began changing our lives in the beginning of the 20th century.  Thanks in large part to the American Civil War.  After a generation of American fathers were killed by the ravishes of war a lot of sons grew up without a manly role model in their lives.  They had no father to learn manly chores from.  To go hunting with.  To beat the crap out of them when they misbehaved.  To toughen them up for the real world.  Instead all they got was the loving and nurturing stuff from their mothers.  And when they grew up they wanted to be mothers, too.  And nurture the American people.  For mother knows best.

When these children grew up they changed government.  Instead of it being the limited government of their fathers they wanted an activist one.  To make our lives better.  More fair.  And safer.  Which is why they supported the temperance movement.  And took it to Prohibition.  To save the American family.  To stop drunken husbands from beating their wives.  To prevent poverty by keeping the money in the family.  And out of the saloons.   To stop the epidemic of venereal disease.  Spread by prostitutes who frequented saloons.  Trying to get some of that family paycheck.  Before the saloon owner got it all.  So Prohibition had popular support.  From wives.  Progressives.  And organized crime.

This was an unintended consequence of Prohibition.  For the law prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation” of booze.  But not the drinking of it.  And when there’s a will there’s a way.  There were people who still wanted to drink.  And could without facing any consequences for it if caught by the law.  So they kept drinking.  And there was a booming demand.  And a willing albeit illegal supply network to meet that demand.  So life was good.  For those who liked to indulge in inebriating beverages.  And for those who provided those inebriating beverages.  Especially the providers.  Because when you make anything illegal that is in high demand means only one thing.  High profits.

There’s a Profit Incentive for Criminals because Illegal Stuff Costs More than Legal Stuff

At first everyone laughed as they flaunted the law.  It was, after all, a victimless crime.  People wanted to buy.  And the underworld wanted to sell.  No harm.  No foul.  For awhile.  Until the gang violence spilled over into the public streets.  When innocents saw this violence up close and personal.  Some even dying in the crossfire.  Like in Chicago.  Owned for a time by Al Capone.  King of the bootleggers.  Who killed off the competition.  The Valentine’s Day Massacre being the tipping point.  When the cops started fighting back.

The FBI eventually got Capone.  On tax evasion.  But it didn’t end the violence.  You know what did?  The repeal of the 18th Amendment.  And letting the people drink again.  Which they really needed during the depressing New Deal programs of FDR.

By decriminalizing alcohol they removed the profit incentive for criminals.  Because illegal stuff costs more than legal stuff.  So there’s no market for bootlegged liquor anymore.  So the gangs turned to another illegal substance.  Drugs.  Whose criminalization has far worse unintended consequences than Prohibition ever had.  We can trace most violent crime in the U.S. to drugs.  From theft to support a drug habit.  To Capone style gang warfare to protect turf.  To the unspeakable horrors on and south of the US-Mexican border.

The Decriminalization of Drugs:  Damned if We Do.  And Damned if We Don’t.

So what is one to do?  Decriminalize drugs?  Not quite the same thing as ending prohibition.  Drugs are a little more potent than alcohol.  Especially methamphetamine.  Crystal meth addiction destroys lives.  Which is why it’s such a lucrative drug.  You can manufacture it anywhere from chemicals.  And it’s addictive.  Addiction provides a steady demand.  And its chemistry provides a readily available supply.  That you can hide.  Unlike Coca fieldsPoppy fields.  Or marijuana fields.

Meth has a strong foothold in the drug-taking community.  Despite it being illegal.  One shudders what would happen if we decriminalized drugs.  Like meth.  It’s potent.  Addictive.  And popular with the kids.  It takes a fake ID to buy alcohol when underage.  Because there are few pushers selling cases of beer and wine coolers on the street.  But if an adult can buy it legally it could be hard for a drug dealer to pass up the underage market.  I mean, there are no empty bottles or cans to trace back to a store.  And if you’re caught carrying, hey, it isn’t illegal.

So we’re damned if we do.  And damned if we don’t.  The war on drugs has a devastating cost on society.  But the drugs are so harmful.  And helping users break their addiction also costs society.  Broken families.  Lost jobs and careers.  Children addicts can no longer provide for.  Infectious disease.  Overdose.  Violence.  Criminal activity.  And decriminalizing drugs won’t make any of that better.

The Poorer You are and the More Children You Have the More Money You Get on Your EBT

America has been fighting another war.  A war on poverty.  Which probably has been more destructive than the war on drugs.  Economist Thomas Sowell blames the welfare state for the destruction of the black family.  By subsidizing failure.  Providing incentives not to succeed.  A disincentive to be responsible.  The very programs to help the poor have destroyed the poor.  With unintended consequences that have destroyed generations.

This video was from 1980.  Fast forward to today and you can see this put in another way.  Perhaps a little less elegantly.  But it reinforces Dr. Sowell’s argument.  There’s a video on YouTube that praises the EBT card in California.  A program to help poor single people with children.  Depending on the number of children and your circumstances, the government loads a dollar amount on the EBT card.  You then use it like a debit card.  At any store that accepts EBT.  The government then reimburses the store owners.

So the poorer you are and the more children you have the more money you get on your EBT card.  As Dr. Sowell pointed out, this may be a disincentive to be responsible.  And the YouTube video shows this.  We should note, though, that the rapper who made this video said that “it was meant to be satirical and poke fun at a real issue.”  Some have called it inappropriate.  You can judge for yourself after you watch the video.  (NOTE:  If you’re at work or are in a public place you probably should wait until you get home to watch this video.  It contains very graphic language (as in the ‘f’ word).  And may be racially insensitive.  Please exercise due discretion when viewing It’s Free, Swipe Yo EBT.)

Government may have Meant Well but the Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Prohibition made it harder to manufacture and distribute alcohol.  But people still drank.  Because it wasn’t illegal to drink.  At first it was just a game.  Imbibing at the speakeasy.  Then buildings exploded.  And bodies littered the street.  Much like they are in Mexico today.  And along the US-Mexican border.  Because well organized enterprises are trying to meet a lucrative demand north of the border.  That our drug policies made lucrative.  Just like Prohibition made bootlegging a lucrative business.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.  And whenever government tries to fix something we often get something worse.  Prohibition and our war on drugs have given us organized crime to deal with.  And our war on poverty has destroyed poor families.  By incentivizing irresponsible behavior.   And making generations dependent on government.

At every time, though, government meant well.  They always say that they had nothing but good intentions.  But we should remember what they say about good intentions.  That the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Revising Language and History to Help the Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 20th, 2010

Barack and Big Brother

“Have you heard, brother, about the summer of recovery?”

“No, brother.  Heard what?”

“Millions of jobs were saved.”

“Doubleplusgood, brother.  Doubleplusgood indeed.”

For inner-party members, perhaps.  For us regular party members, though, not a whole lot has changed.  But we don’t complain.  We continue to drink our Victory Gin and praise Big Brother.  Because we don’t want to be summoned to the Ministry of Love and feel the wrath of the state.  Or be audited by the IRS.

Of course, the proles, the masses, get to indulge in their pornography, drugs, music, prostitution, alcohol, cigarettes and other crimethink.  Anything to quell the unruly masses.  The lucky bastards.  Well, the ones not sent to joycamps, at least.  A few privations will always trump forced labor in my book.

The purpose of Newspeak in Oceania is twofold.  First it provides a political correct language to communicate in.  And, second, this simplified language simplifies the people so they’re little more than automatons of the state.  Makes it easier for the state to lie.  To twist the meaning of words.  To change their meaning.  And to change history. 

Unemployment is higher today than it was during the Bush administration.  But we’re not going to return to the failed policies of the past.  Things are better today and moving in the right direction.  Loyal party members believe this.  They know this.  This is blackwhite.  To believe in things that contradict.  The bad economy of today is better than the good economy of the Bush administration.  Despite what the numbers say.  Or until the numbers can be revised to agree with the new truth.  This is the power of Newspeak.

War is Peace

In the past it took a constant state of war to consume the economic output so everyone had less. Everyone was equal (other than inner-party members who were more equal than others).  Everyone was poor.  Lived in fear.  And sacrificed.  For the common enemy.  Today, we don’t need constant war.  We have the welfare state.  The war on poverty.  Which consumes the economic output.  And makes us dependent on the state.  Where we live in fear of losing our benefits.  And shared sacrifice leaves everyone with less.  For the common good.  Except, of course, the inner-party members.

Freedom is Slavery

Imagine a world where you never have to worry or think about where to work, finding healthcare, what to wear, where to live, what movies to watch, what music to listen to, what books to read, what cable news program to watch, what websites to visit or what to do with your spare time (because you won’t have any).  This is true freedom.  Freedom from choice.  You will never have to think again.  Or provide for yourself.  Because to be a slave is to be truly free.

Ignorance is Truth

What you don’t know can’t hurt you.  Obedience to the state is easy when you don’t question what they tell you.  When everything you hear is the truth.  And it is if you don’t know any better.  The era of Reagan is over.  Trickledown economics doesn’t work.  And if you don’t look at the numbers and see the robust economic health of the Reagan years, it is easy to accept the lie.  If you don’t know the truth then you accept what they tell you as the truth.  And you become good party members.

Newspeak Today

This word play doesn’t only exist in George Orwell’s classic book 1984 or in totalitarian regimes.  It exists wherever states want to revise history.  To alter your perception.  The way you think.  To bring you more into the party fold.  The latest is the revision of ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate disruption’ as noted in White House: Global Warming Out, ‘Global Climate Disruption’ In on the FOX News website.  To try and rescue a favored liberal cause from ridicule and charges of junk science it receives today.  Past examples of Newspeak include the following revisions: ‘terrorism’ to ‘man-caused disaster’; ‘war on terror’ to ‘overseas contingency operation’; and now that the Left wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, these have been revised from ‘tax cuts for the rich’ to ‘middle-class tax cuts’.

For further study on revisionism and abuses of state power, you can read 1984, watch the movie or follow the Obama administration.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,