Friday, March 04, 2005

One thing I've often wondered about is why so many people on welfare are, to put it politely, overweight. Well, not so much how as that's pretty obvious (eat a lot and don't move), as how they can afford to be fat. Leftists often remark on how difficult it is to survive on the paltry sums we dole out to them, but if this were true then one might expect them to be, well, not fat. I have some experience with poverty myself, not too long ago. I lost about 10 pounds in a month (since regained: I make no claims to a healthy lifestyle), simply because I couldn't afford to eat properly, and had to walk everywhere I went.

Am I stereotyping? Perhaps. But then, I grew up in rural Ontario, where there's a lot of welfare, and a lot of fat women collecting it. Why do I say women, one might ask, and not men? Simple observation. Most of the welfare collecting men are, in my experience, positively scrawny. I make no claims to statistical evidence, hear - I don't even know if studies have been done - but rely only on my own experience, which I freely admit may be flawed.

Weight isn't the real issue I want to discuss, though. It's children. Specifically, the children of welfare recipients.

At the moment, the government's policy is to increase a mother's welfare benefits whenever she has a baby. The warm and fuzzy rational for this is that, as babies are expensive, the family will require more money in order to properly care for it. This is fairly intuitive, and I have to say that at least one mother of my experience put that money to good use, raising a brood of children (in excess of eight: I lost count, after a while) who were amongst the nicest, brightest, and all-around most well-rounded people I have ever met. But (and you just knew that but was coming), this is sadly atypical.

What tends to happen instead is that these women realize that the only way they can make more money is by having more kids. So they spread their legs for anyone who comes by, specifically in order to get pregnant and increase the size of their monthly pogie. Some start while still in high school, dropping out to become full-time government supported baby factories; this is, indeed, their stated life goal. I am not exagerating here: I have known people like this, who saw no moral problems at all with it.

This shouldn't surprise anyone with a basic understanding of economics and human nature (which really come down to the same thing, in the end.) Incentives matter, after all, and if you give people enough of an incentive to do nothing but breed - especially when they have no marketable skills - that's exactly what they'll do.

There main problem here is that the kids tend to get shafted. There's nothing stopping the mother from using the money for whatever she sees fit, so that what should go to diapers and baby powder goes to booze and smokes. Now, if the mother is really horrible, her kids get taken away (and hopefully they're not permanently handicapped by fetal alcohol syndrome and malnutrition.) At which point she gets pregnant again, just to keep the cheques rolling in, and the whole cycle continues....

Some of the kids at my high school had mothers like this. Not so bad that they were taken away from them, but they still showed up reeking of cat piss, and their behaviour often spoke of some serious brain damage somewhere along the line. Needless to say they were ostracized, not just by the 'popular' kids, but by everyone (except others like them.) Many went on to support themselves with welfare, seeing government handouts as a right. Others went on to jail. Very, very few went on to rise above their humble origins.

And I've found myself wondering: why does our society encourage this? Why do we have what is, in effect, a breeding program optimized to bring out the very worst of humanity? It was bad enough in the early twentieth, when states around the world used eugenics programs to try and breed a master race. Is it really necessary to try and do the exact opposite? I mean, here we have a situation where one woman on welfare will single-handedly pop out ten kids - none of whom are likely to be particularly well-adjusted to society - while it will take, what, five middle-class families to produce the same number of kids with a better chance of maturing into productive citizens. Citizens who, it might be added, are going to be either supporting that first group through taxes (whether its welfare or the prison system.)

Now, I'm not about to suggest ending welfare completely. Clearly, their are cases where a little bit of tax-supported charity can make a lot of difference for the better. Let's face it: shit happens. Kids are young and stupid and careless, and sometimes that combination results in a pregnant 16 year old. A situation like that calls for a little bit of compassion. At the same time, it hardly makes sense to encourage people to have kids when, by definition, they are financially incapable of supporting them.

So here's my proposal: loans. Why not say, "Look, if you don't want to abort the kid, and you can't bare to put it up for adoption, we'll help you raise it. $1000/month for five years, interest free until the kid's in high school."If she gets a job at some point, once the kid's old enough that she doesn't have to watch it anymore, she still gets the loan. The catch, though, is that this is a one-time thing. If she's silly enough to get pregnant again society will not pay for her little darling, on the theory that once is a mistake, but twice is intentional.

I can see a lot of upsides to this (obviously, or I wouldn't have gone on at such length. Kudos if you got this far.) Most obviously, it removes the economic incentive to breed at society's expense. Logically, less welfare-children would result. At the same time, it removes the disincentive to work: conventional welfare cuts back benefits if the recipient gets a job, and given that most jobs that your typical welfare recipient can qualify for don't pay much better than welfare does, and are rather less pleasant than sitting on your ass watching Survivor reruns, there isn't much reason for them to work. With a loan, the mother has that money plus (if she's smart) whatever she earns from a job, and is able to provide her child with a much better economic start in life. Since society gets the money back much of the hostility towards welfare queens - a lot of which rubs off on their kids - is bound to be neutralized.

There's really no difference between this and a student loan. Both are investments by society in human capital. If a graduate has to spend six years after graduation paying for their education, then why shouldn't young mothers spend an equivalent amount of time paying society back for its investment in their kids?


Blogger Decadent Leftist said...

Trolling for me? How special.

God, you must be fatter than every single "Welfare Queen" on earth. In fact, if every "Welfare Queen"in Canada was combined into a super MECHA-WELFARE QUEEN bent on destroying Tokyo and the Canadaian social safety net in one horrific afternoon before Oprah came on, I'd bet you'd still be fatter.

After all, "Welfare Queen" is a Rush Limbaugh expression. Obviously, you identify (greatly) with him due to your enormous girth.

Also: would not your (idiotic, not modest) "proposal" require more government intervention and supervision? I though that was anthema to you.

I am notifying John Galt as we speak. He's coming to lay the smack down on your pinko ass.


5:01 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Dear lord, I really do think you're dumber than spit. Not as dumb, dumber. Given that spit is inanimate, and thus of zero intelligence, this would imply that your intelligence is, in fact, a negative number.

You must be very lonely. I think this is because you touch yourself when you troll. Don't try denying it ... I can smell your sticky keyboard from here. Normal people have sex. Normal netizens have cyber. You wander around the blogosphere and leave comments (while not bothering to maintain a blog for your own barking moonbattery? How special) and touch yourself in your naughty place.

8:24 AM  
Blogger Decadent Leftist said...

DUMBER THAN SPIT? HAHAHAHAHA. It's grade five time!!!!!!


"Moonbattery" - another right wing term than only freepers and loonies actually use. Sure you're a liberaltarian? The Rush Limabugh comparisions are getting more and more apt. I'm sure you resemble Rush in more ways than one(fat guy, who looks like one of those gay guys that likes to get peed on. You can only get hard when, say, god-emperor George W. Bush whips out his tallywacker and lets the YELLOW DIAMONDS FLYYYYYYYYYYY....into your mouth.)

This is more fun than TV. It's quite a larf for me and my friends AND it takes only 5-20 minutes a day!!!!!!!

My impression of you: "BOOOOOHOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!! HE CALLED ME ON MY FATNESS!!!!! WOE UNTO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Did i make you cry into the chubby arms of your ugly girlfriend? SHE'S TOTALLY COOL! SHE LIKE COMICS AND ANIME AND NERDS AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S HIDEOUS? When you manage to get your sweaty, groaning bulk up out of the chair to mouth her from behind (only after the aformentioned peeing- also, you mount her from behind because her face looks ever worse in the dark), does she ask you to coo sweet nothings from the works of Ayn Rand into her ears?

While you mash your flaccid penis against her vagina in a vain attempt to copulate, do you pretend she looks like an anime character(SUGOI KAWAAIIIIIIIII^-^), or perhaps one of the comic characters that you had your first "stirrings" to at the tender age of 15(BIG TITTIES, LITTLE WAISTS, CLENCHED JAWS AND A LOVE THAT IS AS HARD AND FAST AS HER TRIGGER FINGER)?

Are you upset because the combination of both your and her fatness has made it difficult for both of you to find the proper holes? Do you have to use special clips (to hold back the fat)and outfits in order to copulate now?

Please respond.

Or i go back to being civil with you- but only if you apologize for telling me to- as you put it-"Fuck.Off."*

*Who the hell writes like that?

11:52 AM  
Blogger Matt said...

I just knew I was right about you touching yourself when you troll here. Your last comment pretty well confirms it. I suspect you're also something of a chubby chaser, judging by your fantasizing about me having sex with my notional fat girlfriend. Here's some free advice: when you're attempting to make fun of someone, it only works when you're basing it on something that you actually have evidence for. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an adolescent fuckwit (was that non-grade-fivish enough for you?)

You are a very sad, very little man. And no, I am not referring to your height, weight, or penis size, none of which I have any knowledge of or for that matter any desire to obtain such knowledge. I am referring to the only thing that actually matters in the blogosphere: your personality. In your case, that personality screams through your words, for all to see, "I am an utterly fucked up individual." You are, I think, deeply and justifiably insecure about your worth as a human being, with an overpowering need to distract yourself from the pain of being you by attempting to force some of that pain onto others - and not just me: I've seen the sewer you call a blog, though I gave it no more time than it deserved. Sadly, this tactic only works in the short term. Before long, your brainstem reminds you what a total waste of oxygen you are, and, like a junkie, its back to the comments section for your next trolling fix.

Despite everything, I pity you, and will give you some more free advice: there are only two ways to stop the pain for good. Method number one is to go into therapy, and maybe - after much painful introspection - the oxygen won't be wasted on you. Method number two is to off yourself, in which case there won't be anything to waste oxygen on.

Anyhow, that's the last from me. I've devoted far too much time to your sick little hobby, but if you want to keep trolling in the comments section of this or any subsequent post, please, feel free. By all means. You're only making yourself look bad; maybe, at some point, you'll realize that.

Somehow, I doubt it.

8:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home