Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Keith Ellison, Adam Schiff… the entire leadership of the Democrat Party… you shouldn’t believe a word they say. Why? Simple: They don’t mean anything they’re saying.
Look at an issue that they use to try to gain electoral advantage every election: poverty. They say they don’t like it. Yet, all they do is promote ever more poverty. How’s that you say? Simple: Examine their one main policy to “address poverty.” It’s: transfer payments; money transferred from someone who is not poor to someone who is. Distilled to its most basic elements, that’s it.
Let’s examine that briefly.
Well, we know one thing: the government is not going to pay you to be rich(1). Or, they’re not going to give you enough free money to make you rich. (Forget the lottery; it has a really bad record for making people rich.) If that’s the case, what do those transfer payments do? Well, they let you know that — if they keep it up — the recipients will never fall below a certain impoverished, but livable, or survivable, standard of living.
For some — not a small group too, I should add — that’s enough. These are the single mothers, mostly white, but disproportionately black, who produce children because they know that the government will pay them more money the more kids they have. In these pages we coined the term: “The Willing Poor.” It’s for these people that we coined the term.
For those people, the government — meaning you and I — we’re simply paying them to stay poor.
Let me ask you: for whom will those people vote, come election time? Will they vote for the ones keeping them poor? Or for the ones hinting that they’ll take away the freebies? Ummm… do I really have to tell you what the answer is here? Seriously?
These are the also the ones who’ve spent most of if not all their lives avoiding the acquisition of important professional and life skills that would help them to find good jobs. There are a lot of these people too. They know that the government will pay them to continue to be parasitical members of society.
The crowd of people the Democrats are simply paying to remain poor — and vote Democrat — is not small.
Okay, so we can justifiably conclude that the Democrats have an overt, well-known plan to keep a certain part of the population poor.
We know one more thing: Every time Republicans/Conservatives talk about weaning people off free money, about providing the incentives that will allow people to escape poverty, the Democrats scream to the high heavens. Racist! You want children to die! You hate women! We Conservatives have all heard them all.
If, however, the Democrats could stop with the ridiculous purple language, we could all recognize that there is some truth to what they say about our policy proposals. There is an argument to be made that we can’t just stop these transfer payments. People have become dependent on them for their livelihoods.
Overall, though, I don’t buy the argument. Because I view it the same way I view slavery: there were slaves — lots of them — whose lives were wholly dependent on their “owners.”(2) People made the argument that to abolish slavery would be to abandon many former slaves to lives of poverty and suffering worse than their previous lives as slaves. And there were arguments to “wean” America off slavery. However, the only way to get rid of the evil that was slavery was to get rid of it, and that’s what we did. In retrospect, there are few if any people today, suggesting that we should have abolished slavery gradually.
Other than the lottery, the only way for the poor to become prosperous is if they can take advantage of the most revolutionary economic idea ever formulated: Upward Mobility. The Democrats and the American Left have done nothing but put as much downward pressure on upward mobility as absolutely possible.
Conclusion: One can’t possibly conclude otherwise than that the Democrats intend to keep poor people poor. Why? Guaranteed voter base.
We coined the phrase here, at our small but increasingly influential think tank: The Democrats sure must love poor people, because they’re constantly making more of them.
Sometimes we’d tack on the following: Lots of these poor people we used to call: “middle class.”
Bottom Line: whenever the Democrats start to talk, you should run — really fast — in the opposite direction.
(1) Set aside for a moment government programs like corporate welfare, as well as the vast, lucrative Poverty Industry that supports the myriad government programs designed to keep people poor, that all have the perverse effect of, indeed, paying the people who run them to be rich. These ridiculous, wildly counter-productive, corrosive things should be abolished immediately. We Conservatives and Republicans have been nearly perfectly consistent in our opposition to these loathsome things. However, when we’ve held power, we’ve been, let’s face it, pathetic at getting rid of them.
(2) Using the term advisedly, because we all know that a person cannot own another person. However, back then it was a common belief that someone could own someone else.