When a conservative even questions the validity of the current “welfare state” the altruists (part and parcel of the progressive/statist/altruist regime) come out with their pitchforks and torches to run him/her out-of-town. To be against the welfare state does not mean that one is opposed to helping those, who through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times. A good example are the poor people in Louisiana that have been flooded out of their homes. We should help them.
An example of a “welfare state” run amok is the recent announcement that food stamp recipients can have food delivered to their door. The poor people in Louisiana have four feet of water at their door! So I guess that won’t work out too well for them! But are we really supposed to believe that someone on welfare (excluding shut-ins) can’t take the time to shop at the market? Is this “altruism?” Frankly, I would rather applaud an announcement that the DMV is planning deliver my new driver’s license to my door!
[Source: Welfare Is the New Work, by Stephen Moore]
You may agree or you may disagree, but recently Maine Gov. Paul LePage issued “an executive order” to prohibit food stamp recipients from using their food stamps to purchase junk foods. He contends that the state has an obesity problem (which state doesn’t) and that he will “implement reform unilaterally or cease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether.” You would think that Mrs. Obama would praise the action. She has, after all, recommended that all school cafeterias ban junk food. The Obama administration rejected the LePage request, and leftist activists act as if saying that prohibiting a welfare recipient from buying Twinkies or Dunkin doughnuts at our expense violates their civil rights. I guess Mrs. Obama is OK with the notion that while children can’t eat junk food at school they can eat it at home – and we should deliver the junk food to their door!
The US welfare state spends well over $1 trillion per year on “means-tested” programs. “Means-tested” apparently ensures one is “poor.” It takes 79 federal agencies to administer the distribution of these funds. Of 189 nations on Planet Earth, only 16 have a GDP greater than $1 trillion. Fifteen European nations are found among those with their entire GDP totaling less than we give away – many of which are the “welfare states” Hillary and Bernie seem to love.
Food stamps are so ubiquitous that they have become the new standard currency in many inner cities in America. When you look at the above graph try to remember who became president in 2009. (And for the democrats reading this, don’t say “the recession.” The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which determines the start and end dates of U.S. recessions.)
[From the Moore article] It was only a few years ago when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi opined that putting more people on unemployment insurance is one of the “best ways to grow the economy.” Which is more astonishing, that she believes this lunacy or that she would be dumb enough to say it out loud?
If the Republicans loose the House this year SHE WILL BE SPEAKER AGAIN! Really fellow Republicans heed the sign below. Trump may not replace Washington, Lincoln or Reagan on the list of the greatest presidents, but surely you can’t believe Hillary is a better choice!