Posted by
flipsidedon on Friday, February 01, 2008 2:20:20 PM
The liberals in Washington, D.C., composed primarily of the National Democrat Party and the Country Club Republicans, not on live in non-reality, but furthermore consistently push an agenda that is opposed to reality. The problem with their success in doing so is that any time an individual or a culture ignores or fights reality in their decision-making is that reality, the very principles controlling the operation of the universe, tolerate those who oppose it only so long before it rears up it's head and smites those who dared ignore or resist it.
This week John Edwards withdrew from the race for the Democrat nomination for the Presidency of the United States. In his withdrawal speech from the race, he told his supporters that before withdrawing, he obtained a pledge from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What was that pledge? That they would do two things: (1) end poverty, and (2) bring about economic justice.
The problem?
First, Reality is that these two things directly contradict one another, so it is impossible for both these things to be achieved simultaneously. Second, to pursue the end of poverty is to oppose reality.
Historically, our national goal has always been "to provide freedom and opportunity for all." We have more than any other nation is the history of men achieved that goal. Is there room for improvement? Sure. We are not perfect in this regard, and with all higher goals in human affairs, never will be even though we strive to be so. But we are immeasurably closer to the goall than any nation that would compete with us.
And the facts support this assertion. First, we do not have any economic classes. Figures both a decade ago and again this year show that our people are constantly moving within one decade between economic quintiles: the highest income earners, the upper middle income earners, the middle income earners, the lower middle income earners, and the lowest income earners.
Not only are people constantly moving up or down within a decade, but there are many people that move from the top to the bottom and many who move from the bottom to the top within one decade.
The facts also show that the vast majority of millionaires in this nation did NOT inherit their fortunes, but earned them the old fashioned hard way: through working hard for long hours, being prudent in their spending, and saving and reinvesting their earnings rather than pursuing short term gratifications.
In other words, our economic system and freedom provides the economic fluidity to have any individual's economic success determined not by birth, class, or privilege, but rather by the degree to which they work harder, smarter, longer, or at greater risk than the next guy (e.g., a girder walking welder earns more than a welder on the ground, or an investor in stocks can earn more than an investor in Certificates of Deposit).
The truth is, in a free society like ours with a free and fluid economic system, most people in poverty in this nation are there because of there own choices not to work harder, smarter, longer, or at greater risk. Of course, not all people in poverty belong to these categories (and thus the need for a safety net for those relatively few cases rather than a hammock that encourages sloth), but by far most of them do.
One of the laws of biological nature is reward and punishment. Even plant roots and one celled organisms with no brains whatsoever respond to this reality. Only liberals seem not to be cognizant of this reality: Reward a behavior and it increases. Punish a behavior and it decreases.
Reward working slothfully, foolishly, less frequently, or with no risk, and you increase those behaviors by removing their natural consequences. When you remove the natural consequences, you are in fact opposing nature. Which means you ultimately are going to be slapped in the face by reality.
We see this in the war on poverty for the past forty years now. Poverty has not decreased, those permanently on welfare roles has grown exponentially, we live with a permanent national deficit because welfare and assistance programs now make up over two thirds of the federal budget, and the social security program is:
(1) steaming toward collapse in which those who have worked harder, smarter, longer, and at greater risk are being robbed of the earnings that the government confiscated from them supposedly to insure their survival during their later years, (2) leading us to a generational conflict as the next generation of workers will be forced to surrender huge parts of their earnings in order to support the elderly who are dependent on social security, and (3) carrying our nation toward inevitable bankruptcy as a nation.
Not only this, but the war on poverty (as well as major lotteries) demonstrate again and again that poverty is the result of bad choices not to work hard, consistently, with more wisdom, and at times with more risk. The average poverty family of a mother, father, and two children receives more than $33,000 in government subsidies a year. When the subsidies are included, they in fact are not in poverty. And those benefits are skyrocketing as this growing class of non-workers is growing exponentially (reward a behavior and it increases) because of politicians who are willing to steal from workers in order to buy the votes of the slothful and irresponsible.
So, why are people destitute? Because they spend the money they receive on color TV's (multiple ones in most households) VCR's, the latest video game boxes, $200 pairs of designer tennis shoes, big cars, etc., rather than investing in education or business endeavors. Because they want it all now without doing the work that merits all the stuff.
They don't have a chance because of their race or poverty? Give me a break. There are untold thousands of immigrants to this nation from the Phillipines, Thailand, Vietnam and many other third world countries who succeed within a decade. I know scores of them in south central LA. They come here with nothing, and ten years later they are very successful economically, with thriving businesses that they began from scratch. How do they do this? By working--and living--harder, longer, and smarter. They move to LA and live in homes containing multiple households.
I know extended families with four households living in one home--the middle aged grandparents, their three adult children with their own wives and children, each "household" of mates and their children living in a bedroom, and all of them sharing common living areas. And these are not squalid houses being destroyed by overcrowding. Your go to their modest, perhaps 2,000 square foot homes on small lots, and the home is immaculate and does not fell overcrowded with "stuff" stacked everywhere. Because they live very prudently.
In these homes, everyone of working age is working hard, always staying employed. Where does all their money go? Well, the new immigrants who have joined the household don't use their wages to buy all the latest gear, electronics devices, big cars, etc. So, where do they spend their money? They don't. They save it, including what they would spend if they lived in their own home. They save it. And save it. And save it. All the while, looking for business opportunities.
And one day, they find the right deal, or they work themselves up a corporate ladder. And they go into business, or get a big promotion. Finally, they are financially secure. And they get their own home, which becomes the staging area for the same thing to happen over again with more immigrants of their extended family from their nation of origin.
In the process, they make many choices about NOT buying things, NOT spending all their time on frivolous entertainements rather than education or work opportunities, NOT marrying before they have a decent job and income, NOT having children before they are married, in all NOT HAVING THE AMERICAN DREAM BEFORE THEY HAVE EARNED IT. And, amazingly, they LOVE America, NOT for giving them economic equality or for giving them the American Dream before they have earned it, but rather for giving them the freedom and opportunity to earn these things.
Is it economic justice to give "it all" to a guy--one who never listened to endless teachers, social service workers, religious volunteers, etc., who repeatedly plead with him to work hard, to get an education, to stay away from gangs and trouble-makers, and to avoid premarital sexual alliances and pregnancies--by confiscating the earnings of some hard working guy has been stepping through open doors and living frugally in order to take advantage of the opportunities given to him?
Humanity means we don't allow the slothful and foolish to starve or freeze to death, but the food, housing, and clothing they receive should be very limited rather than elaborate so that they do suffer the natural and just punishment for their poor choices.
Economic justice, which must be our goal rather than forced "economic equality"--something that requires totalitarianism and results in national poverty, vis a vis North Korea--means allowing those who work hard to keep the rewards of their labor and frugality, and it means allowing those who choose to pursue sloth and immediate gratification to keep the reward of their laziness and indiscretion: POVERTY.