Tuesday, February 15, 2011

A Nation of Child Abusing Whiners

What Abortion, the Wars, Medicare, Social Security, the War on Drugs and police encounter killings tell us about ourselves.

Follow the money. Just follow the money. If you do, you will see that we have become a nation of self-absorbed hypocrites, child abusers, and whiners.

How so?

Look at the way our society apportions resources. Our confiscatory tax policy, the proceeds of which we distribute to the old, absolutely assures our abortion culture (no resources available to help/incentivize women to have their baby), assures our outrageous military expenditure (must enforce US$ hegemony to continue the outrageous and unconscionable spending on the old age social programs), and even the War on Drugs and fractional reserve banking system (an effort to keep young people's nose to the grind stone and loaded up with debt).

I vehemently oppose the Welfare State as it is presently configured here in the U.S. Just look at the thing! Instead of helping women to have the babies our society so desperately needs, our Welfare State helps elderly people to remain disengaged and unproductive, and dis-incentivizes them to maintain their health, and doing so cost's 10X+ what providing for young families in need would cost.  Before you freak out, think about that for a minute.  If you oppose abortion, you must be prepared for the consequences of that - babies and young children and mothers taking care of young children. If their families/husbands/fathers are unable to perform the function of providing for the mother and child then society must. If not, you can count on an abortion. It is pretty simple, really. The "Welfare State" will need to exist, just not for the benefit of the elderly.

Now, take a look at the state of the American nuclear family. For 40 years the MSM and the liberal university establishment has maintained a steady attack on the model that brought mankind out of muck and mire... why? Because they have no children of their own. Call it what you will - the Liberal Birth Dearth or Liberal Baby Bust - has left this special interest group with little choice. If your special interest group does not expand via procreation, by mathematical and demographic necessity, you will need to recruit.  And you will need propaganda in order to accomplish your recruiting needs, and you will need government interference to destroy the family. Look what we got in return: Divorce law evolved to incentivize women to divorce; that gave us a generation of men unwilling to marry as well as the pre-nuptual agreement, and an  exploding population of unwed, and unsupported, mothers. Nice shot!

(Let me share with you my anecdotal experience... I have close friends and relatives in the Orthodox Jewish community. They are very conservative politically, and they tend to have large families (3 or more children). I also have close friends in the liberal reformed Jewish community. Many have no children, with 1 child being extremely common, 2 children some what less so but still a good portion, and I can think of very few 3 children families.  Just look at the demographics in Israel. In a couple of generations there will be few non-orthodox Israelis remaining. And note how the Orthodox reject military service; if you want to breed your way to the dominant position, no point in getting killed in war!)

And recruit they do! And because they do not have enough votes themselves, these people co-opt other voting special interest groups. Since those under 18 can't vote, and those 18 to 25 either don't vote or do not do so cohesively precisely because of the influence exerted on this age group in the Liberal Media and university system, the progressives pander to the AARP (disclosure: my 50th birthday is behind me) set who have proven only too willing to force their daughters and granddaughters into the abortion clinics and their son's and grandson's into the military, because it is their only source of employment, if that's what it takes to keep the Social Security checks coming. America has no problem with thousands of abortions everyday... but talk about curtailing "end of life care" expenditures for the terminally ill elderly and you'll have thousands upon thousands of "Q-tips" marching with walkers on Washington. So much for the "Greatest Generation".

The U.S. spends nearly a $1 Trillion, and costs young people thousands of young lives and limbs, on a military designed to maintain US$ hegemony and to protect the flow of petroleum to the U.S.  Why? Because our financial and social program system would implode without it. Once again, where is all the money spent? On questionable medical care for the elderly as well as their monthly stipend from the collection of tributes to the empire... and on the military necessary to enforce it.

Yes, we have some throwaway programs: HeadStart, No Child Left Behind... BULL SH#!.  We are a bunch of Old Farts stealing money from young families and babies, encouraging the murder of the unborn, the death and mayhem of War, and the violation of our Constitution in our FUBAR War on Drugs, and we arrived at this deplorable state of affairs because the Left, beginning in earnest with the unintended consequences of FDR's Great Society programs, was demographically challenged and needed to co-opt votes by pandering.

The most outrageous thing about all of this was that the outcome was never in question. The people that came up with these programs were highly educated and intelligent people and fully understood the mathematics of free money social programs... but they did it anyway.

Is it Legal? Yep.

Is it Ethical? NAFC.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

You point out the greatest generation. I would argue that they earned something by fighting in larger numbers then any of their children in those wars you speak of. (Aka WWII).

To me the real parasites are the baby boomers who refused to fight their war (Vietnam) and yet still feel entitled to the benefits that only exist due to war.

ChrisInGa

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Chris:

Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afgah.... all would take exception to your assertion.

Anonymous said...

Greg,

I would contend that the great masses of single mothers exist because of the welfare state, and continued support just further destroys the family. To the extent that the state does the father's job, it destroys the men. In the early 60s, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 21.5%, about the same as the general population. Today is is at 70%. Without the welfare state, the usual social institutions would generally take care of unwed mothers. First, marriage to the father. Women would be much more careful about candidates for that position. Second, the extended family would grudgingly step in if the father took off. The proper stigma against out of wedlock pregnancy would reappear in milliseconds if the parents had to suck it up and support their grandchildren.

Anonymous said...

Greg,

Comment 3 was me. Sorry for not signing

Regards,

Coal Guy

Greg T. Jeffers said...

A valid contention. I don't disagree that if the state does the father's job for him that he is disincentivized to strive to provide... I also think that women abort children for economic reasons. If that is true, an apparatus must exist to counter that... and it must be funded.

I see the slippery slope of the moral hazard... I don't see it can be otherwise.... commentary is sought and appreciated.... .

Anonymous said...

Another interesting data point is that the poverty rate among those who have done the following is only about 1.3% (Before the crash, maybe worse now.)

1. Finish High School
2. Marry before having children
3. Wait until age 20 before having children

That's it!

That is why society HAS to encourage the family rather than destroy it. Family works. Even if the welfare state can provide physical necessities, the collateral damage of children being raised by single mothers that are not emotionally, educationally nor financially able has been devastating. The fallout of the welfare system fills our prisons.

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

I'm with you on the huge transfers of wealth from young to old. It's just wrong. Also, the "Greatest Generation" is now pretty well in the grave. My dad was 18 in 1942, so he'd be 87 now. If you weren't of age to serve in WW2, I don't think you qualify. The youngest of them are well up in their 80's now. What came between them and the Hippies?

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

Greg,

Not sure what you mean by your reply to me. Korea has nothing to do with baby boomers. They weren't even out of primary school by the time that war was over. Heck at 7 years old they were just entering primary school.

Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan were mostly Gen X and then Gen Y not the boomers.

But even then attempting to compare any of those generations to the greatest generation is ridiculous. The scale of volunteerism and the sheer numbers who fought aren't even in the same ballpark.

Sure some people served. But the number who did as a percentage of their overall numbers is itsy bitsy in comparison to say the least.

ChrisInGa

Anonymous said...

I think the big problem is the financialization of the economy.

In 1960 average income was $5,315 and an average house cost $12,700 or roughly 2.4 times income minimum wage was $1.00/hr so a full time janitor would have made 39% the average at a minimum.
While in 2008 average income is roughly 50K and roughly 300K for the house or roughly 6 times income however that doesn’t tell the full tale because housewives were common in 1960 and today’s 50K household probably has two wage earners. This is not to say that a housewife did no work, mearly that the family got to enjoy the fruits of all her work without government getting its grimy grubs on it. Also, the income disparity wasn’t as skewed as it is today so a hand full of billionaires were not skewing the average upwards to the same degree.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

Oh and minimum wage is now $7.25/hr so the full time janitor makes 15K and is basically screwed. I think that is important because not everyone can be a professional.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

Dan,

In most two income families, the wife's income covers only the taxes. New meaning to the phrase "tax slave."

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

Greg,

I'm thinking that just like drugs, abortion is the symptom of a larger social malady. If children were socialized in more normal two parent households and in a society that required responsible behavior, perhaps there would be less abortion than in the present welfare state.

The welfare state has not contributed significantly to reduction in poverty. While poverty did go down in the 60's more of the reduction can be attributed to economic growth than to the advent of big welfare. I'd bet that abortion is more a symptom of social decay than fear of poverty. A society that accepts more personal responsibility will have fewer abortions. Unfortunately, abortion will be with us with or without welfare. Parents that take care of daughters in trouble will be there too.

Fortunately, I got past this with my four girls. Phew!

Regards,

Coal Guy

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Agreed. But we got here over the course of 40 years or so, and the problem is entrenched. How do you chart a course back?

Anonymous said...

Coal Guy,

It’s not a fear of poverty, but rather an existent crushing poverty. I threw the janitor into the statistics because I used to live next to one. He was a neighborhood anachronism; all my other neighbors were paying monthly rent that nearly equaled his monthly income or mortgages that exceeded his monthly income. The only reason he lived there was because he bought his house in the early 60’s and thus could afford it. Back in the early 60s he earned not only earned more than today in real terms, he earned a family wage. We have gotten to the point where incomes don’t even cover the necessities at the bottom; which is why we crashed in the first place. All of the good places to live had been bid to the moon and they were in the process of bidding up the slums when the bottom fell out.

When the financialization goes away, there will be room for the family again.

Best,
Dan

johndevelopment said...

I find it rather interesting to look at abortion rates world wide. From that perspective, we aren't doing so bad in preventing abortion. Of course we are not doing as well as the Northern/Western European social welfare states who manage to have a good financial safety net for the young and the old and are not freaked out about teaching about sex to their kids.
We squander on our military the same amount as every other country in the world combined spends on theirs...including the Russians and Chinese.
They must just be smarter than we are.
Rational Liberal

PioneerPreppy said...

As generations go the "Boomers" were not the ones who let everything go to hell. The Greatest generation and the Silent generation were the mothers and fathers who allowed their children to run rampant while they purchased bumper stickers that read "We are spending our children's inheritance". They were the cloistered and out of touch judges that gave everything away without a fight and the politicians that promoted federal power grabs left and right.

The Boomers simply lived life unrestrained under the new rules.

I maintain that the U.S. went horribly wrong when the feminist movement infiltrated and usurped the civil rights movement. Once the white women hooked their chariot to the political correctness horse it was all over but the crying and eventual collapse. They promoted every form of government entitlement they could, so the state became the provider husband. They validated every move that benefited women the most by screaming diversity and equality. They also raised their overall value as the most attractive race/gender combination and lead the attack on the common enemy.. white men.

Feminism opened up the door for the current flood of victim politics and invaded the educational system as their main form of recruitment since they weren't going to raise their own children (or even have any). Feminism sacrifices individual freedoms like gun ownership, property rights, even the right to a trial so that women can safely go anywhere at any time without fear or the need for a protector other than the husband state.

Until we deal with rampant, rabid feminism we are not going to change anything.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Pioneer:

FIrst off... OUCH.

If your assertion proves correct.... Not to worry... that particular mindset is being destroyed from within and without. Just a matter of time...

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Dan:

I think/hope you are correct... and for a number of reasons.

IF, and it is a somewhat big IF, you are correct, then the U.S. still has a significant deflationary wave still inbound. The markets say you are wrong... my self-educated-white-trash sense tells me you are correct.

Only time will tell.

Please notice that the deflationary wave, or as you say "when the financialization goes away", working folks benefit and the wealthy are harmed (by mathematical necessity - every change on the balance sheet on one side has an equal and opposite reaction on the other). Inflation is a great friend to the establishment; deflation is their mortal enemy.

Anonymous said...

Deflation seems the most probable outcome to me however it could go either way. Deflation is the destruction of savings and there will be panic. Never underestimate the ability of people to do industrial strength stupid acts while they are panicking. I don’t think the real-estate bubble can be reblown even if we run headlong into hyperinflation, in both Argentina and Chile it crashed before coming back into line; however that doesn’t mean TPTB won’t try.

Eventually I think housing will settle into somewhere around 2.5 times income, whatever that may be, and the prices of everything else will fall in line. 2.5 times income for a house used to be a rule of thumb along with 20%down; both of which helped keep things from getting out of hand. However, that is also what I want to see happen which worries me. It’s easier to have a lot of confidence in an outcome you don’t like than one you do- go figure.

It would also be really nifty if women returned home and stopped trying to be men. The extra labor in the formal economy is not needed, at least for now, and it would help relieve pressure. Whenever there is an advance in technology that renders a significant portion of the workforce an unnecessary expense the solution is usually to kill them off in war. It isn’t put in those terms but that is the practical effect. We have had several advances and been lucky here lately. Latchkey children generally don’t want their kids to have to be latchkey kids so there is hope. There is also pressure building in the Middle East, in Asia, and in Europe on multiple fronts not just financial so the danger of a civilization crunching war is rising too.

Best,
Dan

PioneerPreppy said...

I will admit over about the last year it seems there is a growing anti-feminist female crowd out there. Some are even very vocal and write about the evils of it. Still I have yet to actually meet an American woman that didn't use every advantage the husband gov placed at her feet when the opportunity presented itself.

One way or another the feminism I rail against is doomed I agree with you there.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Dan:

"2.5 times income". Perfectly reasonable analysis. Simply cannot be otherwise... and since I cannot foresee "hyperinflation", or even regular inflation, without housing inflation (because housing is the vehicle that expands private debt via the mortgage market)... though unit inflation is not out of the question (just look at the auto market)....

Anonymous said...

PP

I am no fan of the greatest generation. I don't want anyone to misconstrue my message. But come on.

You state that they gave the boomers (their children) freedom and thus are to blame for their children's aweful behavior. That is the lamest thing I have ever heard. Thats the freaking problem with the boomers. They take no responsibility for their own actions. With freedom comes responsibility. Do you blame the government for the criminals decision to rob someone because the government gave them the freedom to own a firearm?

The greatest generation fought and won the largest war this world has ever seen and placed the US as the most dominant power on the planet. They then fought to a stalemate in the Korean war. They invented the atomic bomb and nuclear power. They put man on the moon. They invented the computer, the transistor, and the internet. They transformed entire regions of the planet into democracies.

You have to give credit where credit is due. What has the boomer generation accomplished?

Just to throw some salt on the wound. What generation does helicopter Ben belong to? Go figure.

Hey I am willing to admit my generation (Gen X) is just as pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Rational,

I don't accept that we have a rash of abortions and teenage pregnancies because sex education is not taught. There are very few 15 year olds that don't know what causes babies. It is not an education issue, per se. It is a responsibility issue exacerbated by the government's role as enabler.

Dan,

I'm with you. Isn't it interesting that the last time that the low-end wage earners could eek out a decent life was just before the start of the "Great Society." Correlation does not prove causation, but ya gotta wonder.

Regards,

Coal Guy

PioneerPreppy said...

Hey Anon @ 5:50 AM

I was not trying to defend the boomers. Far from it my friend. I was just stating it wasn't the Boomers who set us up. In fact they were set up themselves but because there were so many of them they didn't know it nor ever felt the effects.... UNTIL NOW!!!

The Boomers are about to find out how bad they were had. And they were had big time. They were mostly the ones who paid for the Silent and Greatest retirements and they more than likely will not see theirs.

I am also a Gen X'er so I have no stake in the game for defending the Boomers, but it wasn't the Boomers who passed the legislation that started the entitlement mess we are in today. They were loud and irresponsible and marched and yelled but they were not the ones in power or positions of power until almost the 80's. By that time the Fed gov power grab and entitlement mess was well established.

Anonymous said...

PP I wont argue that the entitlement society was well established. However, the assertion is that the entitlement society can only be supported by endless war and the dollar and economic hegemony that brings. I don't disagree with that assertion and I haven't heard anyone else do so yet.

So if you agree with that assertion then you must be willing to concede that it was the boomers on doing that set us on a path for that to come to an end by their unwillingness to fight to maintain it.

And as such it was their own actions (or lack there of) that will ultimately strip them of those very entitlements .

I am trying to think back over history (something greg likes to do often as he discusses the history of marriage) and think about just who the wealthy and affluent were?? Were they people like mother terresa or the robber barrons?

Bottom line is that it is naive at best to think you can sing koom bye aye and still maintain the level of economic prosperity the US experienced for the past couple of decades. If your not willing to fight for it I can guarantee you someone else will be.

No one ever said human existence was perfect, fair, nor peaceful. Its a dog eat dog world. And as much as we might like that to change it wont anytime soon. A society driven by human perfection has yet to materialize.

PioneerPreppy said...

I don't think I can really agree to that theory honestly.

If a group of people be it a tribe, nation or generation are willing to be the ones to fight the wars and do the work to maintain an economy you can't really call it an entitlement society. Unless you have something like late Rome where they simply expected the non-Roman ethnic groups to do all the dirty work.

Now if you are saying that the Boomers as a whole were like late Roman's... well I can't really disagree on any particular issue with that. I would still stand by my opinion that it was the powerful members of the Greatest and Silent Generations that pulled off the ponzi scheme and opened pandoras box though.

I would bet a sizable number of judges are still pre-Boomers today. I know a good number of Senators are still pre-boomer.

I don't disagree with any particular point you made. You are correct in your observations of lack of will present in the BabyBoomer Generation.

The Silent generation and the Greatest were very "tight" people. I think living through the great depression as they did made them more callous and greedy in ways we cannot imagine today. Not in a public way but in a very subtle backhanded way. Just a gut feeling I have is all, maybe complete BS.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that playing the blame game is the right thing here. Much of this Ponzi scheme stuff was funded based on actuarial assumptions that were good at the time. If economic growth had followed the expected exponential path, all would still be well. The world is hitting the resource wall on several fronts, so those original assumptions are not valid. Blame whomever you want, the real question is what now?

For the most part, the left gained power because we were so prosperous at the time. They could engage in their foolishness and there was still plenty left over to keep the productive people doing the work satisfied. No more. So, where from here?

Regards,

Coal Guy