The Cruelty of Compassion

Let me start out by saying that I believe it is our responsibility to help those who are incapable of helping themselves, and to assist those down on their luck to get back on their feet. Having said that, I believe the way we currently help, is no help at all, and is actually cruel.

I made a comment on soembody's Facebook posting that basically said most of what is above, but also that giving a handout to somebody who is fully capable of working only serves to drain their ambition and keep them poor, as we see daily evidence of. Here is the response that I received. "Just what makes you think that you are the "judge and jury", or can play God by determining who is capable of working, and who isn't? Can you tell when a person is physically able,and that he/she isn't suffering from a mental illness so debilitating that they can barely function and perform daily tasks that you take for granted? Not everything is black or white, there are a whole lot of gray areas in life, and if you truly believe that we're all on "a level playing field" and that we are all given the same opportunities to succeed, than that is what precisely what separates our belief in the role of Government, and allows me to wear the label of a Liberal as a badge of honor. Try changing the color of your skin and grow up in a housing project, without the love and support of your family, and tell me that we're truly all equal and born with all the same opportunities to improve our own conditions."

Here is my problem with the philosphy espoused above. First, we should assume that there is no abuse in Welfare and give everybody the benefit of the doubt that they are incapable of working. I've seen, first hand, too much abuse to accept this. And any government program should be vetted for fraud. Second, Where somebody grows up and the disadvantages they had does not make a handout right. All it serves to do is keep them disadvanted and ensure that their children grow up in the same unequal environment with the same lack of opportunity. However, helping those people climb out of that environment, giving a hand up, helps to level that playing field and presents new opportunites for them to take advantage of. Government cannot make the poor wealthy, it can only make the wealthy poor and ensure that the poor stay poor.

By saying that we should support people through welfare because their live has been hard and disadvantaged, is the equivalent of saying "I know your life has sucked so far, so take this check to ensure that your life will suck forever."

Instead of giving a check in apology for what their lives have been, we should invest in them and work with them to bring them up to a level where they can compete and succeed. This is an investment in the individual, but it does take work on their part as well. However, by investing in this person, once they succeed, they will pay back way more in taxes than was ever put into them. And, it improves the opportunity for the next generation.

Keeping somebody in a bad environment out of "compassion" is not compassionate to either that indivual or their children. It is cruel. Not to mention that we are not designed to be idle creatures, and just giving them a check takes away their reason to get up in the morning. It tells them they have no purpose. And I believe we all have a purpose. We just need to help some people more than others on their quest to find that purpose.

So why is giving them money to keep them in the projects considered compassionate at all? Isn't claiming that where they are is horrible, and yet working to keep them there, really the very heights of cruelty?

America's Addiction - And Not To Oil

We hear a lot about America's addiction to oil, but she has another addiction. One much more destructive to her. America has an addiction to government breast milk.

The breast milk is the drug that has been sweeping the nation since the 1960's when the war on poverty created welfare. Like many other drugs, this one is for a specific purpose and helps the individual when used as directed. However, when abused it has the same bad results as the other drugs on the market.

So what are the bad effects of this drug? For one, it is very, very addictive. The longer you suck on the government tit, the more palatable the milk becomes and the more difficult it is to give it up. That milk saps your ambition, your desire to work and keeps you in a continuing state of poverty. It propels people to violence as they seek more than what the milk can give them, and are driven to find something, anything, to fill their time and their days. It also causes children to be born into this addiction, thereby perpetuating generations of families addicted to the government tit and unable to break free. Many know nothing but this addiction and can't see what it is doing to them or how much better life without it would be.

There are those that manage to kick the habit and go on to live very productive lives. But as with any rehab, the percentage of addicts who recover is very small.

And yet, unlike an addiction to any other drug with such negative effects when misused, we do not arrest the dealers for this drug. Why? Because the dealers are the different levels of government. Instead of being encouraged to free themselves from this addiction, the government, the pusher, does their best to convince the addict that they will take care of them. That more will come and this time it will be better. And this drug is cheap, you get the fix every month and all you have to do for it is cast a vote. A very fair trade. This is how the pusher keeps the user addicted and keeps their power over the user.

This drug must only be used as directed. The failure to do so has such debilitating effects on individuals and all of society. And yet, instead of encouraging people to enter rehab to break the drug's hold, the government is always working to find more versions of the drug in order to get more people addicted. Just like any other drug dealer would do.

Whatever Happened to the Little Engine That Could

We all know the story of the Little Engine That Could. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can. I knew I could, I knew I could, I knew I could. There's also the story of the 2 frogs in the hole trying to jump out with other frogs shouting down at them. One frog heard them all shouting that he couldn't do it, but the other frog was deaf and thought they were encouraging him. And which frog made it out of the hole? The one being encouraged of course.

Do we encourage people and tell them they can succeed? Do we tell them to believe they can, and to be that little engine? Nope. Our government and our society have become those frogs around the hole telling others they can't do it. Very unproductive. By telling our citizens they need the government we are telling them that they can't, not that they can. All I really want is a movement from somebody in power, anybody in power, to start encouraging our citizenry.

Why do abused women stay with their abusers? Because they have been convinced that they deserve it and they can't do anything or be anything on their own. Our leadership has begun to take on the role of an abusive husband. But we need to break free. But even though our leadership seems determined to keep us in the hole and keep us from trying, we are still free to encourage each other. And we should do so.

I saw both sides of this issue as I was growing up. I had one grandfather who thought I was worthless because I was a girl and because I was my mother's daughter. According to him I could never do anything, and he even went so far as to ask me in my adulthood when one of my cousins and I were going to make something of ourselves. We were both in management positions making a good living, self-sufficient, happy, and the only 2 in our generation that were still unmarried. The implication being of course that the only way to make something of ourselves was to marry. On the other side of the coin was my other Grandfather who never told me I couldn't do something. He never even hesitated. His belief in me encouraged my belief in myself. If he thought I could do it then I could. I'm sure there were some things my mother would have preferred I not do, like sitting at the peak of the roof on the house my grandparents were building and snapping a chalk line. Especially since the other side of the roof was still bare beams. But Grandpa thought I could do it, and by God I did. It's amazing the levels we can achieve when we know we must, so why can't we achieve those levels just when we know we can? This, I believe, is that too many people are taught that they can't.

I have a nephew who is just 5 years old. His mother is disabled and unable to work so they don't have much money. He is in the environment where so many turn to crime as they grow up because they believe they have no other option. But that little boy has decided he wants to be a chef. He watches all of the cooking shows and follows their instructions. And what does his mother do? She cooks with him. She encourages him to believe that he can be a chef when he grows up. At the same time she's trying to get out of the area she's in and to a better environment for her child. She's planning to move where she has more family, more support for both herself and her child. People who will also encourage him to believe that whatever he wants to do, he can.

Our government is so obsessed with controlling our behavior, through taxation and legislation, but the one behavior they don't concern themselves with is our beliefs in our own abilities. It is in their best interest to have us believe we can't succeed without them. Just listen to what they say. All of these government programs that are handouts. Every time they talk about economic unfairness, John Edwards infamous 2 Americas, all that said was that you can't do it on your own. the message is simple "You can't".

When will a leader emerge who truly believes in the American spirit which I fear will be lost? When will a leader emerge who will encourage the people to be the very best that they can be? When will a leader emerge who changes the message from - you know you can't - to - I know you can? I only pray he comes soon.

Redistribution of Wealth - A New Government Subsidy?

We hear a lot about redistribution of wealth, but what does it really mean? Is it anything more than a new government subsidy? I don't think so. I believe a subsidy is exactly what it is, but for all of the wrong reasons. The government seems to believe that there is a finite amount of money to be made (even though they keep printing more willy nilly) and that if Tom is making tons then Dick and Harry can't make any. They couldn't be more wrong. Big surprise there. There is infinite opportunity for wealth. Even though Tom is making tons of money, Dick and Harry can make even more. Even Jane, Sally and Mary can make money while Tom is.

Wherever we are in life, whether rich, poor or firmly middle class, it is where we have chosen to be. It may not be a conscious choice. We may not have desired that choice. We may not have known we were making that choice, but make it we did. The circumstances we were born into plays a part, but mostly we are where we are because of the decisions we've made. Our choices. Our choices led us to our current situation and, therefore, we've chosen where we are. Some people have made great decisions, others have made bad ones. Some choose to work hard with a goal in mind, some choose to do enough to get by. Some choose to not work at all. Some choose a job they love that doesn't make much money, others choose the money, while some choose Nintendo and a couch. Some choose to save and invest, some choose to live off their credit cards. And some make a combination of all of the above decisions plus more.

So what does the redistribution of wealth really mean? It means that we're subsidizing the bad decisions of some with the proceeds of the good decisions of others. And this is referred to as "fairness". And yet, if people are prone to making bad decisions, if they are given the money earned by another, won't they make the same bad decisions?

I believe that people should have the same opportunities. Education is a big thing for me. I find it appalling that we have to have police officers in our schools, but it's the decisions of the students that lead to that need. Unfortunately, in this situation those decisions impact so many others as well. But if a child chooses to get a good education, even in the worst circumstances, they can. It's a choice they have to make. Having said that, it is what we do with our opportunities that determine where we will go. Shouldn't we be equally distributing opportunity and not the proceeds of opportunities utilized to their best advantage by others?

By redistributing the results of the work of another, where is the encouragement of others to exceed that? Why aren't we telling people, "You don't need HIS money, you can make more on your own." If we really want to "spread the wealth" why aren't we teaching our poor youth how to become entrepreneurs? We seem to be telling them they'll never succeed so they must be supported instead of encouraging them to be the rich of the next generation. We have gone from teaching that with hard work and perseverance anything is possible, to teaching that you'll never make it so there's no point in trying.

The core of the redistribution of wealth is that you can't succeed on your own so the government must subsidize you. How sad is that. This is truly what keeps the poor in poverty. Where is the message of hope. The worst possible thing that we can do to the poor is to tell them they need the government to save them. A crime that the Democrats have been committing on our poor for decades. Instead of being given a handout, they should be encouraged and informed that they can do a far better job of improving their lives than the government could ever do for them. Yet where is this message? Who is saying it? Nobody as far as I can tell. And somebody definitely should. There will always be the rich and the poor because some will still make bad decisions. Some will make horrible mistakes. But why should those decisions and mistakes be subsidized? Oh, I know, the poor are too big to fail.