There are bills making their way through some state legislatures that would require random drug testing for anybody who sucks at the public teat by consuming one or more of the generous welfare benefits we productive taxpayers make available to the unproductive. Predictably, democrats are against holding anybody to any standards as doing so might feel judgemental. Plus, denying welfare recipients the freedom to indulge in the vices that made them destitute in the first place might result in a few less democrat votes come election time. And let's face it, showering the deadbeat masses with fabulous cash and prizes of other peoples' money isn't about helping them, it's about insuring they remain unmotivated and dependent on democrats and therefor likely to vote to keep the booty coming.
I fully support drug testing of derelicts on the public dole. And I would go one step further. I would fully support mandatory, implanted-style birth-control for any female that lives off the earnings of others and from whom nothing more is expected. If she refuses implantation birth control, then she receives no benefits. Moreover, any girl on welfare who gets pregnant should have to name the father(if she knows him)or risk termination of benefits, so the authorities can immediately begin seizing earnings and/or property to help pay for his offspring.
It's time to stop celebrating freak-show irresponsibility like Nadya Suleman's, and expect something from them like no drugs and no more kids. It's the least they can do to repay a generous and compassionate society.
8 comments:
Ed,
Chillingly accurate once again.
Blimey, some tough talking there Ed!
Hi Linda, do you disagree with any of it? Somebody should get tough with these taxpayer-teat suckling deadbeats.
I grew up on welfare - it was nothing short of humiliating. Tó other people, it's just a way of life. I can't understand that.
I agree with naming fathers and mandatory birth control.
Let me be clear, I am in complete favor of helping people who genuinely need help. Any compassionate society should do that much. But, the abuse has gotten out of hand and democrats use welfare not as a temporary aid, but as a political tool to create a dependent voter class. That's the disturbing part.
"but as a political tool to create a dependent voter class. That's the disturbing part."
Do you think public schools are being used for this purpose? I don't mean the blatant liberal indoctrination - I mean the free education - especially pre-k programs that are nothing more than subsidized daycare under the guise of school- and subsidized lunches - things like that. People pay full price for their child's lunch not even realing the other half is picked up by the taxpayer. Isn't that welfare? Aren't people being manipulated into government dependence/ acceptance of govertment assistance (welfare) without even realizng it?
Absolutely. That's the subversive nature of people who want to run the lives of others. It's the reason why governments are so hostile to home-school. It gets the kids away from the indoctrinal control of the imperial state. Karl Marx wrote about that specifically. The state must get the children under it's control as early as possible in order to rear obedient subjects....not the highly educated, free-thinking citizens we all want our children to become, but subjects, minimally educated just to the point where they can be easily manipulated by the state and will function as competent workers on behalf of the state.
That's my dark conspiratorial view. The other view is that politicians naturally want to give stuff to the people from whom they want votes. It's not necessarily evil but, in the end the same thing is accomplished.
Sadly, I actually believe the dark conspiratorial explanation more than the innocent pol bringing home the bacon to his district explanation.
You would probably like John Taylor Gatto.
Post a Comment