Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Stephen Moore writes at Townhall:
Some Democrats have likened workfare to a form of “slavery.” By the way, the hard left made these same kind of over-the-top accusations in the mid-1990s about the Clinton work requirements, predicting “blood in the streets” if the bill passed. There was no blood in the streets.
The latest chapter in this story comes in the form of a new study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers report, which finds that only about 1 in 5 able-bodied recipients of food stamps and Medicaid work full time. This is scandalous, considering that today jobs are plentiful and in most states employers are begging for workers.
“These low employment rates of non-disabled working-age recipients,” the CEA report concludes, “suggest that legislative changes requiring them to work and supporting their transition into the labor force for Food Stamps and Medicaid would have positive effects on work participation and self-sufficiency.”
Liberals have denounced the CEA report by regurgitating the same discredited arguments used in 1996: that millions of Americans will lose their benefits and poverty rates will soar…
Once again, we have to figure out if the people responsible for manufacturing these unconvincing talking-points really believe in them, or are trying to bamboozle others. We keep running into this.
If they believe that this time there will be the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth that failed to materialize in 1996, then I suppose you could say they’re being honest but are placing a questionable faith in future events that history has not supported. In other words, they’re being foolish. If they don’t believe it, they may not be foolish but they’re certainly being dishonest. Either way, there’s certainly a hostility against honest work that’s been elevated to the level of policy-maker and power-player on the left side of the political spectrum.
But I suppose this is all just belaboring the obvious. Maybe liberals are having a tough time winning elections because the elections, quite properly, have come to be about this. Pro honest work, or anti honest work?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In my state I’m a bit suspicious of the way they are doing it. If you are a single, white male (of course) between the ages of 18-49 you have to work at least 20 hours a week to receive food stamps. Naturally, they went out of their way to carve safe zones for other…”demographics.” (I was aghast that an exception is actually made for “foreigners.”)
Here’s where it gets fishy. If you work a real job 20 hours a week you don’t qualify for food stamps. If you don’t have a real job the state has unpaid “volunteer” work they will make you do for 20 hours a week to get the food stamps. The value of the food stamps are $190 a month. Disregarding the fact you are working for the state (a state with a minimum wage of $10.75 an hour currently) for a mere 2.375 cents an hour, is this “volunteer” work in competition in ANY WAY with private enterprise, a’la “Shawshank Redemption”?
- P_Ang | 07/25/2018 @ 16:09A large proportion of welfare recipients are very low IQ, unskilled, functionally illiterate blacks. They are unemployable other than as brute labor. None of the jobs available are that kind of work.
One alternative to permanent welfare is to cut them off. We would see mass hunger, perhaps starvation, in the black ghettos and likely insurrection. Many of our cities would become unlivable for anyone.
Another would be transfer back to Africa. Expensive, but doable. Try implementing that. Less than 5% of Whites would support it.
Is there another?
- Bob Sykes | 07/29/2018 @ 04:51Values -> Vision -> Plan -> Objective -> Strategy -> Tactics. Can’t choose the strategy until you define the objective. What is it we’re trying to do here?
If we’re just in “maintenance mode,” trying to keep some fragile structure together so that those of us in a lifestyle that offers a bit of comfort, can keep it going a little while at the expense of the future, then start with just coming out & admitting that. And we ARE mortgaging the future to get that with the current arrangement. We’re subsidizing sloth and punishing service, which has to mean we’ll get more of the former and less of the latter.
But if we’re not ready to admit that’s our objective, and we want to pick a different one, that is okay too. In that event we’ll have to pick a different strategy, and if there is none available, then the new Plan will have to be to make one.
It all starts with being honest with ourselves about what it is we’re trying to do.
- mkfreeberg | 07/29/2018 @ 08:01