Mother Jones is subtly mocking him for his suggestion to new college graduates that they should begin having children as soon as is feasible, but it's the progressives who need to be rethinking their opposition to young marriage and child-rearing. More than they have yet realized, their beloved social insurance programs depend on solid families. For one thing, a married couple raising their own children is the one group least likely to drain the coffers of such programs. For another, a married couple is statistically likely to be far richer, and thus capable of paying higher taxes to support such programs. Finally, large families provide the seeds for more such families in the future -- more taxpayers, and taxpayers whose upbringing in successful marriages mean they are more likely to sustain successful marriages themselves.
The day is coming when they will no longer be able to pretend that is not so. The loudest calls for family and children will be coming from the Left: before you know it, now that the Baby Boomers have begun to retire, the young will be hearing that this is their patriotic duty.
9 comments:
For one thing, a married couple raising their own children is the one group least likely to drain the coffers of such programs. For another, a married couple is statistically likely to be far richer, and thus capable of paying higher taxes to support such programs.
You're assuming then that they care where the money for their programs comes from? Because I don't. I fully believe they assume the endless well of rich people willing to sit still and be taxed out of all their labor to "help the less fortunate" will always be there. It's why Greece is a basket case, and all the other socialist democracies are not far behind.
No, they precisely DON'T want people to be upwardly mobile, because that demonstrates that wealth is not granted based only on heredity or luck. They WANT more people dependent on government because that brings their side more political power. The actual COST of that power is largely of no interest to them.
I don't think they care now. I think they will begin to care when they realize that the money is really gone and they have no choice but to cut back on their vote-buying schemes... er, I mean, their programs to improve the lives of the disadvantaged. At that point, expect a fresh new look at teen pregnancy!
I'm tending toward MikeD's take, though not fully there. Grim, I think you are giving them credit that the truth will eventually dawn, when it is too powerful to ignore. Only for some.
It is true that from odd, kaleidoscopic twists of competitive culture, groups can embrace their seeming opposites in but a few years. Countries changes sides midwar. But more common is that some goodly percentage will be bitter-enders, denying the flood as is rises from knees to neck.
Some will get it. Most not. They will continue to believe in money from Somewhere.
There's another advantage to Romney's advice, especially in the context of Progressives' opposition to young marriage and child-rearing.
Conservative families' children will tend to grow into conservative adults, while Progressives' children will tend to...be greatly reduced in number.
Demographics matter in elections, and I've long said that this is a generational struggle.
Eric Hines
I think they will begin to care when they realize that the money is really gone and they have no choice but to cut back on their vote-buying schemes... er, I mean, their programs to improve the lives of the disadvantaged.
And I don't think they will. Greece certainly isn't. They're doubling down on stupid. Cyprus is leading the way on how they'll first try to pay for this stuff. Confiscate money in the banks, freeze accounts, you know... the stuff that destroys any trust in the banking system (which is just EVIL anyway). Then when that dries up, they'll start coming after privately owned property... past that? I dunno, I hear indentured servitude is popular with the dictatorial class.
I'm tending toward MikeD's take, though not fully there
Please believe, I think that the majority of liberals actually WANT to help people. The details of what that takes is not to be considered. They don't care HOW, just DO SOMETHING. It's the ones in Congress and the White House to whom I ascribe malice. Maybe some in the private sector too, but they'd be in the vast minority.
I think that the majority of liberals actually WANT to help people. The details of what that takes is not to be considered. They don't care HOW, just DO SOMETHING.
Gee. I guess Mike and I are going to disagree even when we agree. I think most liberals (and I do not ascribe to them progressivism) do care about how we help people; they just want to walk a different path: they have more faith in government as the solution than a lot of the rest of us.
But I agree: the Progressives [sic] in government--there are no liberals there anymore--do have malice and/or personal gain/power as their goal. These do know full well the outcomes of their policies, but they don't care as long as they get theirs.
Eric Hines
You have to distinguish between politicians who are liberal and voters who are liberal. I tend to agree with Eric Hines - many of my friends (and extended family) are liberals. And they really *do* want to help other people.
The disconnect between the way they think and the way I think has more to do with the consequences they expect from government intervention than anything else.
Most liberals I've talked to take a 'best case scenario' view of consequences, as in "That person isn't poor through any fault of his/her own. Thinking otherwise would be bigoted/blaming the victim. Ergo, the poor are just like us, and if you give them a helping hand, they'll react the same way you or I would (IOW, no one will take advantage of free X and free X will actually help its intended beneficiaries).
Oh, and nothing costs anything and everything is sustainable.
We sat at dinner this weekend and a family member told us she thinks the Buffet Rule makes perfect sense to her. She had NO comprehension of why earned income is taxed differently from investment income (nor did she appear to understand that seniors like her mostly live on investment income). Scary.
Oh, and nothing costs anything and everything is sustainable.
When I say "the details of what it takes are not to be considered" this is precisely what I mean. The average liberal minded person (again, not those in power, those who vote) doesn't understand or care to understand where the money for all their ideas comes from. "The government will pay for it" is the common refrain I hear. No thought whatsoever as to what that means. "The rich will pay for it" without realizing that doing so will disincentivise earning, and may (as France is finding out) encourage the rich to leave.
No, as far as they're concerned the details are unimportant, just that we do SOMETHING to help those unfortunate people.
The Left can always replace non productive American citizens with easily pacified slave immigrants. If they happen to get a bunch of Islamic ones, well, they may just chalk that one up to Bush's pre engineered Islamic terrorism talk.
Islam is only the Left's enemy after the Left gets rid of their real enemies in the US.
Post a Comment