The Welfare State is a Tragedy and Everyone Can Escape It, Here's How...
Once upon a time, President Ronald Reagan said, "We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added."
Juxtapose Reagan with this:
Vox.com, an outpost in an overpopulated citadel of liberalism in media, posted this headline: "I get food stamps, and I'm not ashamed - I'm angry." Maybe she only eats cupcakes and gets fat-shamed. Just a guess. If you'd like to read the piece for yourself, good luck. There's a danger of your eyes rolling so violently they'll pop right out of your head. If you prefer the debunking of pretty much every point made in the article, you've come to the right place. Sorry, no cupcakes.
First, let's address Ms. Gilbert, the writer of the article. Frankly it doesn't sound like she enjoys life much at all. That really is a bummer in the summer without proper air conditioning. Our problem with her is most of the points she provides in her piece are untrue. That's the nice way of us saying her sweatpants are aflame. Now we don't necessarily blame Christie for her gross misunderstandings of how life works; we blame the leftist, communist subculture of America which encourages individuals to be dependent on government rather than independent from it.
Disclaimer out of the way, here are some quotes from Christine's article, and why they're simply untrue:
"When it's just me, an adult who can make her own choices, I can choose not to eat. Or to eat cheap junk that at least provides enough calories to keep going. I cannot make that same choice for my kids."
The thing is... with a little bit of budgeting and meal planning, you can buy eggs, milk, bananas, beans, rice, quinoa, vegetables and more for a week or even a month's supply - and it would cost approximately the same (or less) as going to Taco Bell or Burger King. For example, my wife and I often eat breakfast for dinner. We each get eggs, bacon, toast, beans and maybe salad or fruit. Grand total? Under $3 each. Yes, really. Best of all...
Christine also mentions having made $11 an hour...and implies she's bounced from job to job. Yet she never explains why. Since spies are a bit more resourceful and don't tend to complain in the ways Christine does, it's safe to assume she doesn't have a career in espionage. But Christine does have a college degree, and one wonders why she couldn't get a managerial position. For example, a McDonalds store-manager salary is $43,000 a year. $43,000 is not rich, but neither is it poor, and should be attainable for someone with a college degree. Unless it's in gender studies. Then you're only qualified to whine all day and make bad choices. Wait...
Now, if you're making $43,000 and stay married to your baby's daddy - even if he only works part-time, bringing in $20,000 a year - together you're making over $60,000. Again, you're not uber-wealthy, but you're equipped enough to budget and properly provide for your children. Of course the key here is getting and staying married to daddy. Moms and dads getting and remaining married are the single greatest tool to generate, and the most consistent indicator of economic prosperity. Science. But we're not supposed to talk about that, because it would be "judgmental," and "unfair," and "fat-shaming"...wait, not that last one. As displayed by Vox, it's kinder to avoid judgment and keep somebody in poverty, than to use proper judgment to propel them out of it. Perpetual victims are sacrificed to the great god of big government.
"I offer a valuable service with the skills I have learned. But that's glossed over in favor of the myth of 'steak and lobster — at taxpayer expense!' while actively enabling a system that keeps me poor."
Firstly, this is what we call a "straw man." If a Google search brings up zero results for "food stamps steak and lobster myth," it's probably not an actual thing. Also I'm hungry now. And craving butter. Moving on. Which system keeps her poor? That's glossed over too. You're not supposed to ask questions, you sexist, you're supposed to feel sorry for her. FEEL SORRY FOR HER.
Secondly, Christine never lists what her "valuable services" are. Spoiler alert: your skills are only valuable if someone else in the marketplace sees value in them. True story. Which tells us it's more likely her skills aren't as valuable as she believes them to be or... she's personally unemployable. Like maybe, just maybe, she's miserable to work with because she's a perpetual victim and nothing is ever her fault. Just a guess. It can't all be blamed on an "enabling system that keeps people poor." Sometimes it's just you. Sorry.
"That's why I collect assistance without shame. And I'll continue to do so whenever I need to, until an actual living wage is legislated and applied across the board."
Ah here we are. The linchpin. This little tidbit is economic terrorism. She's making a threat order to justify her position. She's got your money tied to a chair with a squirt gun to all the president's (and Ben Franklin's) illustrated heads. "I'll take from you until you give me more! YOU GREEDY BASTARDS!"
All of us here at Louder with Crowder work. Almost all of us hold multiple jobs. None of us take from anyone else. None of us are rich. But we don't make economic threats. Nor do we whine about how our skills aren't recognized and the government should force someone to pay us more because we deserve it and it's our right! Give us more bacon or the ten dollar bills get inked!
We are Americans. We know if we work smart, hard and well, we can - and will - get ahead. It may not be easy and it may not happen tomorrow, but it will happen. Bacon helps.
Can we go back to Reagan for just a minute? Christine Gilbert needs to read it, because methinks she's never been told.
On February 15, 1986, Reagan focused his weekly radio address on the welfare state. While Christine's main argument in her Vox piece is welfare helps her keep her family together, Reagan had something far different to say about the system. Its main detriment, he said, is its destruction of the American family. Some highlights:
We're in danger of creating a permanent culture of poverty as inescapable as any chain or bond; a second and separate America, an America of lost dreams and stunted lives. The irony is that misguided welfare programs instituted in the name of compassion have actually helped turn a shrinking problem into a national tragedy
...Poverty won in part because instead of helping the poor, government programs ruptured the bonds holding poor families together.
we spend vast amounts on a system that perpetuates poverty. But the waste of money pales before the sinful waste of human potential-the squandering of so many millions of hopes and dreams.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the real problem with our welfare system.