As many political observers have noted, thanks to the steady expansion of government giveaway programs, roughly 40% of the electorate now lives on government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) "freebies." They have essentially zero interest in freedom, free speech, free markets, the size of the national debt, initiative, education, responsibility or running a legal business.
Their interests are basically themselves and maximizing the "free" benefits they can get.
Thus in this election--and all future elections--the choice is between a free country and "Free Stuff." If a majority of voters--as counted by Democrat machines and Spanish firms owned by George Soros--want
the latter, there's no saving this country.
And frankly, at that point there wouldn't be much
worth saving anyway.
Now, one can hardly be surprised when poor, uneducated people vote for what they perceive is in their self-interest. Nor can one be upset when folks who are compassionate and intelligent but don't know much about economics want to ease the lives of the struggling poor.
I suspect most hard-working liberals/Democrats fall in this category. They believe the poor can be rescued by having "the government" use "its stash" of money to give them all free food, housing and medical care. (Oh, and cell phones. And anything you can buy with an EBT card.)
On the other hand, seems to me that a lot of Democrats must know enough about economics to realize that trying to force the taxpaying half of the population to support the 40-percent cannot work in the long run--and indeed, must lead to financial disaster.
Not just "...may cause problems..." or "...is likely to lead to higher deficits...."
MUST lead to financial disaster.
These are the people who I think deserve most of the blame for the state we're in. At some level they suspect there's something wrong with the notion that the poor can be rescued by giving them a living. Using money borrowed from China, to be repaid (in theory) by our children and grandchildren.
Unfortunately, any liberal who suspects there's something wrong with the basic premise is afraid to break ranks and voice their unease, because no one else in their peer group has said anything. And if they're the only ones feeling uneasy, why...they must be mistaken.
If any of you would like to make the case for why the fundamental Dem/lib premise is absolutely viable and will produce a wonderful outcome in the long run, feel free to give it your best shot. But consider this: Do kids turn out better if their parents make 'em get up, go to school, graduate and get a job, or if they give 'em everything the kid wants and let 'em sleep til 2pm every day?
Handing out free goodies makes both the people running the programs and the recipients feel good, but it doesn't reduce the number of poor people. At some point the policy-evaluators need to realize that work is a good thing, and that jobs don't come from government.
Indeed, when corrupt pols shower hundreds of millions of dollars on croney-owned companies in an effort to create jobs, you get a couple of dozen jobs that end up costing $300,000 each to create.
Barely 30 days left to decide whether you stand with OWS or on the side of personal freedom and responsibility.