Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Cataloging Signs of the Apocalypse

I think I'm going to take on a new hobby and start cataloging signs of the coming apocalypse.  It's really easy because they're everywhere.  I don't believe the 12/21/12 Mayan stuff, but it's looking pretty darned crazy out there.

How about parents trying to stay single and to keep their offspring stupid - just because it's more profitable? (H/T Bayou Renaissance Man)
THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.
You can feel the pain in this NY Times reporter when he says:
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. 
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households
There's a very strong case that the key to living a decent upwardly mobile, middle class life in America depends on a few simple, old truths: don't drop out of high school, don't get married until you're out of school, don't have children until you're married.  The simple act of just getting married and then having children reduces the rate of poverty by 82%

One of the most stunning facts in the culture of dependency is how out of wedlock births changed over time from the world I grew up in.  Anyone remember the lyrics to "Love Child" by the Supremes?  "No child of mine will be bearing, the name of shame I've been wearing"?  It was not something to be proud of.  In today's decadent culture, it's different: by percentages, out of wedlock births account for more than half of the births in the black and Hispanic communities.  Try using the phrase "shotgun wedding" around someone under about 25, see if they know what it is. 

I come from the past, it's a different planet. 

As sad as that story in the NY Times is, at least it's about an attempt to end the cycle of poverty.  Unlike this story out of the UK, (H/T Barking Moonbat Early Warning System).  The story concerns Ms. Leanna Broderick, and concerns how she saved for Christmas for her children.  What's wrong with that?
* Leanna Broderick plans to give children designer outfits, iPads and jewellery

* The 20-year-old has never worked and claims nearly £15,500 a year ( $24,974.00 )

* Claims she is better off on benefits and last year saved £2,500 ( just a bit over $4,000.00 )

* Said there was ‘no point’ getting minimum wage job and paying for childcare
That's right, she's on the public dole.  While I applaud how she managed to save £2500, it apparently never occurs to her who actually own the money she is saving.  But why should it?  The state has promised her that all would be well.  She became a mother while still almost a kid herself.  What are the chances her two “accidents” won’t follow the same path? Poverty follows out of wedlock childbirths - especially when it's encouraged by the state!
“The people at the Job Centre have actually told me I’m better off on benefits than in a minimum-wage job. It’s the system’s fault. My kids would suffer if I worked. This way, taxpayers know I’m raising two well-brought-up kids.” 
Of course, we do the same things here in the US and actively discourage people from trying to get out of poverty.  I've written before about the awful situation where people experience real drops in their usable income if they work harder and make more money:
This underscores the most serious problem with reforming welfare laws.  Note that more than doubling pretax income from $14,500 to $30,000 results in a loss of 28% of their net income.
If you're a poverty pimp and make your living by keeping people in poverty, it simply makes sense.  Makes even more sense if you're deliberately trying to collapse the system.  


  1. Mid 80s lived in the ghetto for a couple of years.
    Incredible - the mindset of so many there. Example - our downstairs neighbor - white, early 20s - was third generation welfare birthing 4th gen - from 2 different "fathers". She was in the 3rd year of a taxpayer sponsored job training program that should have taken 6 months tops. This program was a requirement to
    continue receiving welfare.

    Although she would drive across town for cheap cigs, to address her own health issues wouldn't walk two blocks to the "free" clinic, or take the "free" bus.

    From what i saw, she was typical - no interest in bettering her situation if motivation or effort was required. Sad.


  2. The real problem with Cloward-Piven is that the end game of the strategy has no hope of success.

    BASIC economics tells us this.

    Then again, the strategy was designed by a pair of poly-sci/sociology majors who probably cant do basic math, let alone understand bedrock economic principals such as supply, demand, price, and economic incentive.

    But thats not even the greatest folly of Cloward-Piven. America has always been, at its core, a dream. A place where no matter your outward status...you had the ability to work hard to change it. Take that promise away, and you destroy the contract that holds many people to this nation. It would pitch the nation into chaos. Millions would become outlaws overnight as they actually tried to make a profit.

    Those people would be ripe for revolution.

    They wont wipe out poverty, as that is economically impossible. They will simply start a revolution and destroy the country.