A Bum By Any Other Name ...
I saw this story from the AP today, and it reminded me of why the welfare state is such a colossal waste of money (and for those of you on the left, I agree with you that the warfare state is also a colossal waste of money, so don't get all morally superior on me). Anyhow, the bottom line is that the feds are still ponying up money to house and take care of refugees from hurricane Katrina.
Now if the refugees in question are physically unable to work, I suppose I can see supporting them. Ideally, I'd say that private charities should be doing it (since they don't force me to contribute like the government does), but I suppose if we're going to have the government in the charity business, we can take care of those who are unable to support themselves. Let's be damned specific about what "unable" means, however.
And that's what burns me about this story. If I'm displaced by a natural disaster and the feds are paying for my lodging, I've got a great opportunity to get back on my feet much faster. All I have to do is find a job (and from what I see in the want ads, there is no real shortage of employment opportunities), and since I'm not paying rent or other living expenses I can pull a tidy little nest egg together PDQ. Granted, it may not be a great job, or a job I plan to keep for a long time, but when you're down and out you have to start somewhere.
Unless, of course, the government insures that you don't. You can be a bum, or a baby machine, or a lifelong screwup on the dole in one city, and if a natural disaster hits, you just move on down the road and the pattern of government-subsidized dependence continues. As in so many other cases, when "the government" pays for it, everyone conveniently forgets that the people paying for it are the people who are actually working for a living and being looted by our good friends at the IRS.
This is why I respect (and contribute to) private charities. When they help people who are down on their luck, the goal is to get them back on their feet. The Salvation Army will take you in and give you food and clothing, but you'd damned well better try to make something of yourself and stand on your own two feet. If you just want to hang out, get drunk, smoke rock, or pass yourself off as the next great but-as-yet-undiscovered hip-hop artist, they throw you out. They understand that "charity" is, by definition, receiving the unearned. In the old days, everyone understood that too -- so being on the dole was looked down upon (as was irresponsibly pumping out kids).
But once politicians understood that votes could be bought at taxpayer expense, the notion of the "entitlement" was created. Irresponsibility, poor family planning, and addiction became not only acceptable, but also tickets to official sympathy and a totally subsidized lifestyle. Then, the anti-capitalistic leftists trotted out these pathetic excuses for humans as damning indictments of the free market, and demanded more socialism to remedy the problem their dependency-creating policies created in the first place!
If you think I'm being hard-hearted, I invite you to take the following challenge. I hear so many trendy leftists opine about their heartfelt interest in the fate of the "poor" .... so I say put up or shut up. Pick the down-and-outer of your choice, and try to help them. Help them find a job and see if they take it (or keep it). Offer them food for work and see if they take you up on it. If all these people need is a chance, give them one.
However, if you discover that you've wound up adopting a Katrina-refugee-like dependent of your very own, don't be too surprised.
Now if the refugees in question are physically unable to work, I suppose I can see supporting them. Ideally, I'd say that private charities should be doing it (since they don't force me to contribute like the government does), but I suppose if we're going to have the government in the charity business, we can take care of those who are unable to support themselves. Let's be damned specific about what "unable" means, however.
And that's what burns me about this story. If I'm displaced by a natural disaster and the feds are paying for my lodging, I've got a great opportunity to get back on my feet much faster. All I have to do is find a job (and from what I see in the want ads, there is no real shortage of employment opportunities), and since I'm not paying rent or other living expenses I can pull a tidy little nest egg together PDQ. Granted, it may not be a great job, or a job I plan to keep for a long time, but when you're down and out you have to start somewhere.
Unless, of course, the government insures that you don't. You can be a bum, or a baby machine, or a lifelong screwup on the dole in one city, and if a natural disaster hits, you just move on down the road and the pattern of government-subsidized dependence continues. As in so many other cases, when "the government" pays for it, everyone conveniently forgets that the people paying for it are the people who are actually working for a living and being looted by our good friends at the IRS.
This is why I respect (and contribute to) private charities. When they help people who are down on their luck, the goal is to get them back on their feet. The Salvation Army will take you in and give you food and clothing, but you'd damned well better try to make something of yourself and stand on your own two feet. If you just want to hang out, get drunk, smoke rock, or pass yourself off as the next great but-as-yet-undiscovered hip-hop artist, they throw you out. They understand that "charity" is, by definition, receiving the unearned. In the old days, everyone understood that too -- so being on the dole was looked down upon (as was irresponsibly pumping out kids).
But once politicians understood that votes could be bought at taxpayer expense, the notion of the "entitlement" was created. Irresponsibility, poor family planning, and addiction became not only acceptable, but also tickets to official sympathy and a totally subsidized lifestyle. Then, the anti-capitalistic leftists trotted out these pathetic excuses for humans as damning indictments of the free market, and demanded more socialism to remedy the problem their dependency-creating policies created in the first place!
If you think I'm being hard-hearted, I invite you to take the following challenge. I hear so many trendy leftists opine about their heartfelt interest in the fate of the "poor" .... so I say put up or shut up. Pick the down-and-outer of your choice, and try to help them. Help them find a job and see if they take it (or keep it). Offer them food for work and see if they take you up on it. If all these people need is a chance, give them one.
However, if you discover that you've wound up adopting a Katrina-refugee-like dependent of your very own, don't be too surprised.
posted by DrJDG @ 23:18
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home