Posted on 11/24/2012 3:57:06 AM PST by Kaslin
The left-wing media went wild after the election when analysis showed that many poorer Americans supported President Obama and entitlements could have been a major reason why. Liberals always like to think of themselves as noble, and the thought that some vote-buying could have occurred is deeply offensive to them. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.
Americans earning less than $30,000 a year gave the president about 7 million more votes than Gov. Romney. All told, Obama defeated Romney by 3.5 million votes. The math is clear.
But what about motivation? How can you assign entitlements as a voting factor? Well, what else is there?
Were lower-income Americans voting to support the $16 trillion dollar debt? The 8 percent unemployment rate? The nearly $5,000-a-year decline in wages for working people?
No, many lower-income voters were supporting the expansion of means-tested entitlements like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare payments, along with Obamacare, where about 30 million Americans will have their health insurance paid for by other Americans.
When you have individuals in more than 100 million American households receiving some kind of federal subsidy outside of Medicare and Social Security, that will mean something at the ballot box.
Especially because Mitt Romney proposed to change all that.
But why is doling out so-called "means-tested entitlements" a bad thing? Isn't it a sign of a humane society?
Financial safety nets are surely worthy. We can't let the elderly and children suffer because they don't have resources. But what's happening in America is far more than simply expanding a needed safety net.
Twenty years ago, the feds spent 9 percent of the total budget on entitlements other than Medicare and Social Security. Now, the number is 16 percent. Liberals scream that it's because of the bad economy. Not true.
Twenty years ago, unemployment among African-Americans was 14.3 percent. This year, it is 14.3 percent. In the Hispanic-American precincts, unemployment in 1992 was 11 percent; today, it's 10 percent.
It is the liberal culture that is driving the entitlement mentality, and that is destructive to the country. The truth is that folks who get stuff are not likely to be as motivated as people who work for things. Freebies sap initiative.
We are living in a "Where's mine?" age. "If at first you don't succeed, then ask for things to be given to you." A record amount of Americans are receiving food stamps, and more workers are on federal disability than ever before. The Democrat Party actively supports the entitlement expansion, and that absolutely helped Barack Obama get re-elected earlier this month.
If we continue down this road, however, say hello to Emperor Nero. Same thing happened in Ancient Rome. Look it up. The population became weak and unmotivated, and Roman power collapsed as individual ambition was crushed by selfishness and dependence on the state.
The question used to be, "Who's your daddy?" Now, it's, "Who's your nanny?"
And we all know the answer.
Liberals always like to think of themselves as noble
Only if they are looking down at the masses.
Rather than give up loot and slaves, the Roman elites undertook a massive social welfare system for Roman citizens.
The poor would have been happier to have had things as they had been before the slaves and the loot ~ living on the farm, raising grapes, vegetables, pigs and chickens ~ almost every man having had a jab at being part of the local constabulary ~ and maybe even qualifying for voting.
Alas, bringing in slaves destroyed every incentive.
Rome had a dilemma ~ much like our own which is caused by automation, computerization, robotics and improved work methods ~ we can give these things up and have a stable neo-iron age social order, or we can continue to build the machinery for a more secure, and different, future. But along the way everybody's gotta' get fed.
I'm never sure if bill o'reilly thinks eating is a good practice for those who earn less money than him.
The geographics of the vote can't be dismissed from this conversation.
Cities voted for Obama
Rural America for Romney
It is the Cities imposing their politics on rural America.
The Cities that can't administrate them selves responsibly are in charge of rural America also.
Nonsense. For every job those technological advancements cost they gain 3. Totally bogus analogy.
The problem has been defined down to the molecule. SO what is the solution? How do those of us that understand the inevitable end of this trajectory change it?
Take a (well armed) drive... you know where to go, and just look. Oh, don't bother going before noon, they are mostly nocturnal...
The other part of this problem is the stifling of innovation. Build a better mousetrap today, and those who will beat a path to your door are likely to be serving you papers on behalf of the mice, or a grievance form on behalf of the exterminators’ union. The so called progressives do more to protect the status quo than any so called ‘stodgy’ businessman ever did
“How can you assign entitlements as a voting factor?”
You don’t. Sign up for entitlements, lose the right to vote. Easy.
Right, because the problem is not with those who receive”entitlements”, it is with those who buy their votes.
Eliminating these people from the voting rolls, “motivates” the true recipients of the benefits - the politicians. Those sleazeball would NOT be working to get these people our money if their were no votes involves- which there should not be.
Great points.
Some people say there’ll never be a breakup, but I don’t know. I can’t see almost fifty percent of the population, conservatives, compliantly agreeing to a fully socialist state...which is where we’re heading. Something has to give.
Saltpeter in the free food is the only thing I can think of.
Are the elderly suffering because they "don't have resources," or because of a lifetime of feckless decision-making? Are children suffering because of a lack of "resources," or because they have ignorant, self-centered biological progenitors instead of responsible parents?
If bad choices don't have the consequence of personal suffering, you get a proliferation of people repeatedly making bad choices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.