Thread: Evolving Wealth
View Single Post
Crowbob Crowbob is online now
Information Overloader
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NW Lower Michigan
Posts: 29,982
Poor, unmaried, uneducated women absolutely DO have children for the benefits. It is ignorant and disengenuous to think otherwise. I would even go so far as to say 'most' do. It is a well established, well entrenched, transgenerational, politically correct industry. These women loose their eligibility when their children turn age 18 and literally dump them on the street. The girls then have babies, the boys wander aimlessly hanging with their babymommas or going to prison-on purpose. This is the most degrading, harmful, destructive, self-perpetuating human development imaginable. This is public policy that has no upside. The only true beneficiaries of this policy are the bureaucracies and bureaucrats charged with the responsibility to distribute other people's money. Cash benefit amounts have been decreasing, true. However, the non-cash benefits are skyrocketing (i.e., food cards, medical care, housing and energy subsidies, child care, home chore providers, etc.). This creates a permanent, angry, disenfranchised underclass with nothing to lose. And it is growing. If rich men are having more babies than poor men it is only because the state and federal gov'ts have replaced and displaced fathers and fatherhood. The richest man taking responsiblity for the most babies is Uncle Sam himself. If these subsidies ever stopped, you would see images on the streets of American cities indistinguishable from the most squalid, horrific, lawless, disease-ridden third world hell holes on dear Mother Earth. This is a reality too horrible to contemplate and is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole.
Old 04-08-2010, 07:13 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #30 (permalink)