William Thien

When All of the ISM’s Contradict Each Other

Posted on: October 4, 2014

First there was Social Security. Then, there were other programs which developed to include Medicare and Medicaid. Then, along came what are euphemistically called “nutrition assistance” programs followed by programs designed to help unwed mothers and families with newborns. Today there are even programs that provide free cell phones.

The range and scope of socialist/communist programs in The United States is tremendous and seemingly unlimited, except for the fact that there are only a limited number of workers paying for the programs that one in three in The United States now receive.

Even more disturbing is that many of those workers who contribute through their taxes to support the social programs, those workers themselves often don’t even meet the guidelines of eligibility for the programs they support. Socialism is exclusive.

All of the social programs I’ve described here and in other essays and observations are what our government kindly calls “The Social Safety Net,” and really, that’s what it is. The Social Safety Net is designed to help people when times are difficult for them, to prevent them from hitting rock bottom, and causing economic paralysis in the country as economic failure could be considered a contagion in a way and when certain socio-economic groups suffer, their economic condition often spreads outward.

The problem is not with the idea of a social safety net, which is a noble one. The problem with our so-called social safety net is that there is a prevailing belief among large swaths of American society now that the social safety net is not just there to protect people in times of financial and social hardship, but the social safety net is also a way of life, a regular form of income, a socially acceptable avocation.

Some basic statistics and knowing that if one in three, the current number today receiving some form of government subsidy, if one in three are receiving benefits when our government just reported that unemployment is at its lowest level in the last six years and our economy is “booming,” well then there must be some sort of philosophical and theoretical disconnect between reality and government statistics. Or, there is the other alternative, the one which most socialists work doggedly to disavow. The social safety net is being scammed on a massive scale.

One prime example which I often cite is the annual statistic indicating that on average over forty plus percent of children are born to unwed mothers. Whilst listening to national public radio on the way in to work the other day, the host interviewed a feminist author who quoted a rather disturbing statistic, that in fact last year over fifty percent of children were born to unwed mothers. And she was proud of it. In her irrational world of complete feminine independence (aka at least partial dependence completely on social programs), she thought it was “neat” that so many women were birthing children out-of-wedlock. Obviously she didn’t care where the money came from to pay for the product of all of that unwed sex, or perhaps she wasn’t rational enough to consider her statement. Or perhaps she is not truly a feminist, but rather a communist. Perhaps in her world, there is no distinction. Ah yes, now we are getting somewhere.

Now those numbers, fifty percent of children are born to unwed mothers differs from my sources which indicate the numbers of babies born to unwed mothers are closer to forty percent, the fact of the matter is that the numbers of children born to unwed mothers is approaching half of all babies born in a year. But why? And how can women afford to do that?

The answer is, they can’t. A woman cannot afford to pay for all of the costs of having unwed sex, birthing the child which is the result, raising the child and missing all of the work involved (even with the leave act) and then pay to raise the child, especially if as women are constantly claiming, they are not paid as much as men for the same work (a fact I do not dispute however irrelevant it is to this discussion).

There are women who somehow manage to do just that, raise a child out-of-wedlock without receiving any form of government assistance, but statistically they are an anomaly. The socialist will always parade those women in front of you in an effort to disprove any position to the contrary but one only needs to stand at the checkout line in a grocery store or associate with one of the checkers to hear stories about women, and men, leaving all day long with shopping carts piled with food paid for with funds from “nutrition assistance” programs, aka food stamps, WIC Program, and other forms of subsidy. It’s huge. Grocery stores love the money they receive from said subsidies. It’s another source of revenue. It means more money but it drives up the prices (they can charge more as demand is increased artificially through the massive abuse of the programs). It makes your dollar less powerful.

So, back to unwed pregnancies and 1 in 3. If that many babies are being born to unwed mothers AND one in three Americans are receiving some sort of government subsidy, clearly the social safety net is being used for purposes other than what it is designed (and that it was designed for only such purposes remains questionable, otherwise such behaviors that so abuse the system would be screened from subsidy; clearly the social safety net has obvious flaws engineered into its design to perpetuate what you and I see as abuse and misuse of the social safety net. Otherwise how could the abuses be so massive?).

We see then that the social safety net is not being used as a means to protect society from economic turmoil but instead the social safety net is being used predominantly as a way of life, a career for many, and we reached that conclusion with rather basic but readily available public data and statistics.

But if as the government says in its release of employment data today, unemployment is at its lowest level in so many years, while as we know at the same time one in three people are receiving some form of government subsidy, and so many babies are born to unwed mothers, wherein lies the truth?

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.

Advertisements

7 Responses to "When All of the ISM’s Contradict Each Other"

RE: The problem is not with the idea of a social safety net, which is a noble one. The problem with our so-called social safety net is that there is a prevailing belief among large swaths of American society now that the social safety net is not just there to protect people in times of financial and social hardship, but the social safety net is also a way of life, a regular form of income, a social acceptable avocation.

To me, this above graph of yours in a nutshell sums it up tidily. that is, the social safety is noble —— but it necessarily should cover bare essentials and be available on a limited basis; othewise, it only logically follows that it’ll become over-relied upon —– a ‘avocation’ as you generously put it. And as you too likely have noticed, to many sub-sectors of our society, said safety net is a multi-generationally shared experience that has inculcated itself culturally as damn-near a God-given ‘right.’

I can’t offhand think of a more sinister way of instilling malaise and failure upon a society one claims to love, protect and ensure its ‘social safety.’

That is a very interesting perspective. It seems that you have spent a great deal of time considering the issue. Care to share more?

More? Not sure what else to say; my last point was that enervating, emasculating and in other ways depleting the will and pride of a social sector that you claim to love and protect with a ‘social safety net’ is a pretty ironic form of evilness IMHO.

With the direction the country is going, what other choice is there but to perpetuate what you are describing?

RE: “what other choice is there but to perpetuate what you are describing”

Are you being rhetorical? I know the country has to move in another direction. to me, it’s the early 90s move to global economicazation that fostered a situation in which much of the working and lower-middle-class has become dependent on ‘safety net’ staples. so i blame Clinton and other traitorous scumbags who greased the skids for NAFTA, GATT and the new exploitative WTO charter, so we could now compete wage-wise with third world nations. I recall Clinton cheerily imploring the public to forget about the u.s. being a manufacturer anymore; ‘we can grow economically solely by providing a service economy to the rest of the world.’
I cannot believe the political luster and myth that guy has pulled off in the 21st century; it’s like people just don’t want to acknowledge plainly evident truth because it’s too depressing and downright frightening to look at the truth.

Agreed. I’ve characterized Clinton as “the guy who walked down to the end of the American assembly line and threw the switch, shutting it off for good.”

edit: meant to say “so we could NOW compete with third-world nations” of course; not “so we could not compete with third-world nations.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

October 2014
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: