Replies

In Britain, as in the US, the growth of the welfare state is completely intentional. The purpose for growing it is to cement political power.

As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It used to be that only the left—and not even all leftists, but just the extremists—wanted to put themselves in complete power over a horribly impoverished populace. But these days, even some on the right have embraced that view of government.

Unfortunately, too much of the populace is not able to see through the rhetoric to the true motivation of those who advance poverty growth policies. For instance, when a politician makes some claim about the necessity of raising the minimum wage to a “livable” wage, they fall for the claim, hook line and sinker. The fact that minimum wage is a starter wage, meant for young people to get the experience in the job market that will help them advance is, to their minds, nothing more than “right-wing propaganda”, meant to make the rich richer. They don’t see the connection between promoting minimum wage increases and opening the border to low-skilled illegals who, if they work at all, are paid extremely low wages that are only a fraction of the minimum wage.

For power-hungry politicians, pricing young people out of the job market while diverting training jobs to unskilled illegal immigrants is a win-win situation. They get the vote of the unemployed because they make such a big noise about how they want to improve their lives with “living wages.” They get the vote of the illegals because they opened the doors to the promised land. (Oh, did I mention vote fraud?) They get the vote of emotion-driven liberals who cannot see the logical consequence of actions if they were shown a flow-chart demonstrating the clear cause-and-effect relationships of actions and reactions.

Until enough people recognize the power grabbers for what they are and become able to see through their rhetoric, we are headed towards becoming a full-blown banana republic.

By the time they are 15 or 16, twice as many children in Britain have a television as have a biological father living at home. The child may be father to the man, but the television is father to the child. Few homes were without televisions with screens as large as a cinema—sometimes more than one—and they were never turned off, so that I often felt I was examining someone in a cinema rather than in a house.

Yes, but there's method to this madness... broken dependent people are reliable voters for those in political power who's primary 'skill' is taking money by force from one group and giving it to another group. (In our country we call them democrats)