Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free
Cheers!
Posted on 11/25/2012 6:21:36 PM PST by grey_whiskers
This is a brief follow-on piece to the original, (Vanity) Demographics Are Not Destiny, or, It's Just How We Roll
In that piece I considered the GOP-e's analysis of the 2012 Presidential Election loss as due to unsurmountable demographic shifts in the electorate, and showed that the changes in the electorate were not due solely to demographics, but to changes in the labor market and the attitudes instilled into the historical blue-collar voting bloc (across sexual and racial lines) in an attempt to gain political power. I then showed the financial dangers of such an approach and compared them to the opportunities afforded by the traditional American labor market. In this piece, I look at the situation from the point of view of members of the Obama-voting demographic, and suggest approaches to changing the attitudes of this voting bloc.
We have seen that one of the selling points of the government-as-Santa-Claus philosophy is that it provides a safety net (or, as some commentators complain, a hammock), for those who feel unfairly victimized by the current labor market. Traditional conservatives are puzzled by this. Why, they ask, would this appeal to anyone? Isn't America the "Land of Opportunity"? Yes, it is. But only under certain conditions. That is, there are some people who are not good-looking enough, or talented enough, or strong enough, or geeky enough, that they can ever reasonably expect to advance much beyond the bottom of the ladder. For those people, it seems, government as Santa is an extraordinary deal: without having to exert themselves, or compete in a tough marketplace, they can achieve just as high a lifestyle as they would be able to on their own -- or in some cases higher. According to an article at ZeroHedge, a head of household earning minimum wage has more disposable income than a family of four earning $60,000 per year (thanks to government programs).
So that is a double-whammy from the entitlement zone: why work if you can't advance? And even if you can, how many years will you have to run as hard as you can (like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen) just to stand still lose ground?
But there is another issue, touched on in the Life of Julia campaign ad. Has anyone noticed that at age 31, Julia decides to have a child (after, presumably, government-paid contraception and abortion services until that point); and that there is no husband anywhere in the slide show? It's positively Messianic of Obama.
"Dear Leader, this woman has been caught in the act of Adultery, for she is with Child. The religious nuts want to stone her. What sayest Thou?"
And Obaama spoke unto them and said, "I proclaim to you that Julia is free to exercise a Woman's Choice. And to you, Julia, I say, neither do I condemn you. Go in Peace. Because you have chosen to be True Unto Yourself, great shall be your reward. For I force no woman to choose between Poverty and Marriage, nor do I require that any woman shall be married, unless it makes *her* happy."
Put these two items together, and what do you have? Not just a tax on those who produce, but an active reward (in terms of numerous federal programs) for those who *reproduce* -- as long as they do it irresponsibly, so that they can claim "need". And the net result of this is easy to see. A destabilization of the family (as married couples are required to put their kids into daycare to pay for the taxes used to fund the federal programs for the single mothers), and an incentive for the non-married to have more children out of wedlock -- hey, it's easier than marriage, and one night stands and short-term relationships are a LOT more fun, right? The more you sleep around, the more money you get: call it the Horny of Plenty.
Well, it's plenty all right. But while the single woman reaps the benefits, someone else is paying the freight: consider the down-the-road costs of the numerous social pathologies associated with children raised in one-parent homes; as it turns out, despite the Life o Julia ad, the outcomes for children are determined NOT by the quality of the schools, but by the family (or lack thereof). Think I'm exaggerating? Try reading this intereview with form Democrat Senator from New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan, on PBS.
It's time we go all Alinsky on the Democrats, and use the dissenters within their ranks to call out the rest of their party, and hold them to their OWN standards.
Because demographics are NOT destiny, they're a matter of choice. And we owe it to EVERYONE's children and grandchildren to make the right one.
Thanks!! I have this bookmarked for reading first thing in the morning.
Thanks!! I have this bookmarked for reading first thing in the morning.
Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free
Cheers!
C’mon now, folks.
We’re conservatives, we pay our own way.
Times are tough on a lot of us, but if you’ve got a job, really, $5 a month? You’re going to miss that? How about turning off the lights when you leave the room? How about dropping the thermostat a degree while you’re not at home? How about skipping that fancy pants coffee twice a month?
All we’re asking for is $5 a month. Get out that wallet, input your Debit/Credit card #, set up a monthly and forget about it.
If this ham-n-egger can be a dollar a day guy, you can pony up $0.17 a day. Seventeen cents a day for all the time you spend on FR?
Cerainly, a bargain at twice the price, don’t you agree?
You’ll feel much better about your time on FR.
Alas, Obamugabe doesn't believe in coal!
bookmark
Those who chose must pay. Dues will be paid and accounts settled.
I think the only demographic we have to worry about are the takers vs the makers
We are so fortunate that our makers won’t put up with this and will shrug it off.
We are utterly, completely and totally fooling ourselves if we don’t think the demographics shift is a very real threat to Conservatism.
This is no more than happy talk and pie in the sky. I said demographics would nail us in 2012. It is only going to get worse unless we find some real leaders. There is not a demographic out there, except white males, that is a natural demographic for our conservatism.
Stop fooling yourselves.
If the other demographics are not "natural" then we have our work cut out for us, rather than sucking our thumbs, eh?
(Like the young lady who exclaimed that Romney was going to "outlaw contraceptions" -- she'd never heard of Griswold v. Connecticut...)
We need to start the way the left did -- by "consciousness-raising."
Cheers!
” - - - And we owe it to EVERYONE’s children and grandchildren - - - “
BTW, ever notice that the Federal Politicians have always charged The National Debt to those who are either to young to vote, or haven’t even been born yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.