This is scary. For a short time I worked at a for profit school, and this video is the tip of the iceberg. We will never begin financial recovery until this is fixed. Until then we are just wasting our efforts, resources and time.
The answer is as simple as "redistribution of income/wealth". It is a central tenant of socialists everywhere. In the U.S. that includes your president and a minimum of 40% of House of Representatives - all of whom are dems.
Where it gets confusing is that in a representative republic like the USA there is nearly universal agreement about helping the "less fortunate" members of society. Obvious examples of the 'less fortunate' include low income aged, economically unsupported single mothers with minor children, permanently and temporarily disabled individuals, and the involuntarily unemployed.
Some of situations imply a TEMPORARY benefit stream. Other examples last until the individual dies. As an aside, the duration, amount, and qualifications for receiving various benefits are a separate issue. Responsible adults consider them a legitimate subject for consideration and debate. The entitlement class and their political representatives do not.
So pretty much all the well intended federal assistance programs were originally predicated on reasonable standards for eligibility and reasonable if not generous benefit levels. None were originally intended to support sloth as a chosen lifestyle. However, that's where we find ourselves today as seen in your YouTube example.
If you're like most tax payers, you didn't notice the decades long process of Congressional dems expanding the concept of public benefits for the less fortunate to PERPETUAL income for the ignorant, lazy and morally handicapped.
The rational for doing so differed from one dem to another. Some House members (Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bobby Rush and Frederica Wilson to name a few) see perpetual and unlimited welfare as a mechanism for providing modern day reparations to the decendents of slaves. However, most dems at the federal level (whether socialist or not) view perpetual public benenfits in far more utilitarian terms. More specifically it is a means of purchasing votes using "other peoples money". Note that "using other peoples money" is another central tenant of socialists.
Its really quite simple. Most democrats and all socialists think 'rich people' have 'too much money'. It is their goal to confiscate as much of that money as possible and redistribute it to the entitlement class buying votes in the process.
This problem Sissy talks about really started with Lyndon Johnson and his "War on Poverty," which has transferred billions and billions of dollars from private citizens to government programs to help the poor, but most of the money is absorbed in "administration" costs in distribution, so that very little ends up helping the poor.
This program has actually made the problem it was trying to solve, worse with the destruction of the black family unit and many single mothers trying to raise kids on the welfare system.
The greatest disappointment is the program is still in effect and we have almost as many poor now as we did before the program started, 39 million in 1969 vs 37 million in 2004.
There are 59 Federal programs at a cost 100 billion that fuel the "War."
Before it was put in place, many churches and charities dealt with the poor and since these programs have gone by the wayside.
The biggest problem with the way the war is fought is it keeps people in poverty on a generational level, instead of teaching people how to remove themselves from it.
The food stamp program, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals" because the animals may grow dependent on handouts and not learn to take care of themselves.
Ok, I received an email this morning from one of my hoodlum associates. He thinks my two prior posts on this thread suggest some racism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If I had one wish, the people in the YouTube vid (and everyone like them) would be gainfully employed. They would be self-supporting, tax paying, economic success stories.
Maybe a racial component was perceived because the people interviewed at this particular office were black. Well here's the reality - the largest numbers of career slackers aren't minorities. My issue is with ANYONE that chooses sloth as a lifestyle and the public dole as their source of income.
Here's another thought. Financial success or failure is NOT a fixed sum game.
Let's call the whole U.S. economy a "pie". The size of the pie isn't fixed. It expands and contracts. So if Joe was a financial failure yesterday and becomes a financial success today, his piece of the pie doesn't come off of someone else's plate.
As a society we need to quit creating incentives to expand the pool of ambition impaired individuals. The so called obama bucks should be put to better use.