posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:27 AM
Yep, if you're on some form of government benefit, no matter what your circumstances apparently, then you are a 'mooch' (aka sponge, bludger or
This is the poorest framed argument I have read on ZH. Either TD did a poor explanation of his position, or he is just lashing out with propaganda
commentary that is bound to be provocative. It's sad really, because there are probably a lot of people who read and actively participate in his blog
trying to make sense of their own situation, in an otherwise tight job market, who at no fault of their own, might need to access welfare services to
remain with a roof on their head and food to eat (could be asking for too much). Now I do acknowledge there are indeed people who sponge of the
system, I'm not disputing that.
But comments like this, as are many others similarly, fail to discriminate between those groups of people who are bludgers and those who are readily
seeking to become independent of welfare, by either finding a job or more hours of employment. Lumping everyone into the same category is only going
to stir and provoke people to react with anger as many of these people are not willingly sitting about idle all day but want to get out of their
unfortuante situation. I speak from experience, and I work full-time now. But when I was unemployed and being demonized for it, it was beyond
frustrating and annoying, and sometimes very depressing. As such I tend to feel for people who are going through similar experiences.
I see that as financial conditions deteriorate for many people, commentary like this is only going to ferment civil unrest and 'class warfare' as it
is sometimes labeled. It's certainly is not going to help the situation. I often see such commentators backpedal, saying "I didn't mean to include
those who are genuinely looking for a job' or similar, with their sweeping judgment. Well how hard is it then to remove the ambiguity (its not that
hard if you can construct a couple of simple sentences, and certainly if you can articulate an inflammatory argument ) and make it otherwise clear?
No, its more like the clear intention is to provoke and agitate, or otherwise whinge and whine in protest against others.
Welfare States of America: In 2011 Nearly Half The Population Received Some Form Of Government Benefit
While politicians may debate whether or not America is the most "generous" (with other generations' money of course) socialist welfare state in
the history of mankind, the undoctored numbers make the affirmative case quite clear and without any chance for confusion. The single most disturbing
statistic: in 2011 nearly half of the population lived in a household that receives some form of government benefit, which in turn accounted for 65%
of total federal spending, or $2.5 trillion, and amount to 15% of GDP. And yet some people out there still think these people, long since
indoctrinated to do little but mooch off the welfare state (which will continue subsidizing its existence so long as debt rates are so low that the
government can issue trillions each year without fears of consequences) will halt their iTunes purchases, will voluntarily stop subsisting on the
government's teat, or will rebel against a government which is their only source of income? Why? Especially since something tells us that there will
be a peculiar overlap between this 50% and the 50% of Americans that pay zero taxes.
edit on 23-1-2012 by surrealist because: