Here you go. Follow this link to the Wall Street Journal
While so many are distracted by news from the Middle East, we see that food stamp recipients remained unchanged in February. About 44 million Americans are getting assistance. That's about 12%.
Those food stamp recipients can be converted almost directly to Democrat votes. Consider the appeal of the Democrat platform and policies. Higher taxes support more programs for the poor. And because the poor do not pay income taxes (liberals say that they actually do pay a "negative income tax"), then higher income taxes do not affect them adversely. Support for that sort of government spend-and-tax is almost universal among the poor.
Include the element of class warfare that is incessantly infused in every discussion of wealth or poverty by liberal politicians and their accomplices in the press. "To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability!"
Add to that the 20% of Americans who are true-blue liberals and you only need to pick up 18% of the vote to win an election.
In light of this, it's easy to understand why policies and programs that fail to raise people out of poverty are so adamantly defended by Democrats.
The true purpose of the welfare state is to secure a block of voters, and not to eliminate poverty. The true purpose of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare is to secure a block of voters, and not to preserve the dignity of the elderly. The true purpose of expanding bureaucracy is to increase the number of voters who depend on big government spending, and not to better serve citizens.
If the Democrat candidate can count on 32% or more of the vote, and if true conservatives can count on their 20% "true believers", then the swing vote is not at all 60%. It's more like 48%. And getting 3/8ths of that group is simple.
So what is the real solution to the poverty question in America?
While so many are distracted by news from the Middle East, we see that food stamp recipients remained unchanged in February. About 44 million Americans are getting assistance. That's about 12%.
Those food stamp recipients can be converted almost directly to Democrat votes. Consider the appeal of the Democrat platform and policies. Higher taxes support more programs for the poor. And because the poor do not pay income taxes (liberals say that they actually do pay a "negative income tax"), then higher income taxes do not affect them adversely. Support for that sort of government spend-and-tax is almost universal among the poor.
Include the element of class warfare that is incessantly infused in every discussion of wealth or poverty by liberal politicians and their accomplices in the press. "To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability!"
Add to that the 20% of Americans who are true-blue liberals and you only need to pick up 18% of the vote to win an election.
In light of this, it's easy to understand why policies and programs that fail to raise people out of poverty are so adamantly defended by Democrats.
The true purpose of the welfare state is to secure a block of voters, and not to eliminate poverty. The true purpose of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare is to secure a block of voters, and not to preserve the dignity of the elderly. The true purpose of expanding bureaucracy is to increase the number of voters who depend on big government spending, and not to better serve citizens.
If the Democrat candidate can count on 32% or more of the vote, and if true conservatives can count on their 20% "true believers", then the swing vote is not at all 60%. It's more like 48%. And getting 3/8ths of that group is simple.
So what is the real solution to the poverty question in America?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment