Thursday, August 12, 2010


Kind of quiet around here with Philmon off getting high somewhere, probably in Colorado.

Some people are in a fizz because some of the money congress appropriated for union jobs was taken from the food stamp program. (And it's deficit-neutral, because we pay for a year's worth of stuff over ten years!) And it triggered my Welfare Rant #31.

Let's take two hypothetical neighbors. One is a hard working woman who, through a string of bad breaks, finds herself with no income. She looks for work, manages her affairs responsibly, and is obviously concerned that she cannot pay for her food and housing.

The other neighbor doesn't have a job either. She shoots out kids (from an endless string of 'suitors') like a Pez dispenser, throws trash on my property, doesn't look for work, and has loud parties until 3am most nights.

If both neighbors go look for public assistance, someone far away with no knowledge of their situations other than income and family size will hand them money taken from me (and others). Neighbor #1 will probably be ashamed of the whole thing and keep looking for work. Neighbor #2 comes to expect the money. "Where's my check?"

I can directly help either of these neighbors, or both. I could do more if my money wasn't confiscated in order to pay people like neighbor #2.

Given the liberty, I would help neighbor #1.


tim said...

You know when their taking money away from their constituents on food stamps, we have run out of places to “borrow” from.

Rock bottom is upon us.

BTW, isn’t it ironic who gives more to charity and who proclaims themselves the champions of the poor?

Whitehawk said...

It is unfortunate that we bought the whole idea of "welfare." It is socialism plain and simple. Socialism is based on 2 unjust actions. 1. The government stepping between an individual and the natural consequences of bad behavior/choices to intervene and lessen the lesson and 2. The government stepping between the industrious individual and the fruit of his labors to take it and give it to #1. Socialism is based on injustice and spawns harmful attitudes and behaviors.

Give me the address of #1 in your example. I want to send a check too.

philmon said...

Budda bing, budda bang, bro jeffmon. That's why I say charity should be local, and of course you can't be charitable with other people's money. When charity is local, those who deserve it will get it, and those who don't will either strive not to need it or otherwise strive to deserve it.

I'm up to Federalist #60 ... if anyone thinks that our government isn't supposed to be limited at the top and distributed at the bottom, they have not read this invaluable context and explanation of what our Constitution is and why it was designed that way.

Wow. Just ... wow. When I'm done I will move on to the anti-federalist papers, which I am betting serve as warnings about the weaknesses in our Constitution. The Federalists knew of the weaknesses, but the necessity of a Constitution outweighed them.

I didn't not drive to Colorado because I might, say, have a blow-out outside of Denver, for instance (and thank God it happened near Denver instead of somewhere east of Limon) -- nothing's perfect, but the care and thought that went into the balance of power in the Federal government is stunning and I challenge anyone to come up with something better that is as defensible.

I think the biggest weakness has been shown in the last 70 years where we now have a significant portion of the population whose votes can be bought with other people's money. It is a reflection of how we have allowed our culture to deteriorate.

Which is why I'll be in Washington on 8/28.