"There You Go Again..."

The NYT, like a stubborn child, simply refuses to let go of their black racial analysis, and instead doubles down on the theme: If you're against entitlement programs, you're against the blacks.

No, no, a thousand times no.

If you look at the actual language used, (and not this double-secret-probation "codespeak" that apparently only elite New York liberals can pick up on), Newt Gingrich steered Juan Williams' questions away from talking solely about black people. (Btw: Why in this 21st century do we divide up by race, and ask questions about this particular racial group or that, when in reality, where exactly do biracials fit in? Black immigrants? Can we please get over this noxious "special" designation?)

Using his own daughter as an example, he explained how children of all races could learn to use work as a means to make their own money. To start off small, at a "menial" job (and surely all those elite libs who employ ... household help to clean their own toilets look upon janitorial work as lowly and menial), and work their way up: to essentially "own" that job, while developing a work ethic that works to enrich the poor population.

Is it wrong to teach that today?
To blacks, as well as whites, and every color in between?

You see, that's the key distinction Republicans like Mitt Romney are making this year: these almost 50+ years of Democrat-sponsored entitlement programs? They are not working, instead trapping people in a cycle of poverty, where government handouts, rather than competitive performances in schools, in the workplaces, in life are the "reward", the best hope promised by non-delivering Democratic politicians.

G-d bless the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's departed soul. He, and his brothers, surely meant well. But how'd it work out in reality? Meritorious rise via equal opportunities of poor people of all races? Or a slow slide into the world as we know it now -- with rich elite libs on top, surrounding themselves with paid help to care for their elderly, pick their crops, and do society's dirty work ... while the middle class gets squeezed in being asked to pick up the tab for these generous social programs for who libs deem society's biggest losers.

Thankfully, welfare was reformed, built on a Wisconsin initiative. The incentives to break up homes, stay on the dole, and breed (again, for whites as well as blacks and others) was taken away. We've got to do this, again and again, with the unaffordable entitlement programs that take away options and breed dependence.

America as a whole gets it. You've got to have somebody call to bring down costs of these behemoth and growing social programs. Not simply promise to rope more suckers into the mix (see the health insurance mandate) or take more from those with the most to keep on with the current status quo.

A social safety net is just that: a rarity that should be pulled out in case of emergency to help the truly "needy" in our society. Not something to build a long-term lifestyle around.

Unemployment insurance simply has to end at some point. The SNAP (food stamp) numbers should be there for emergency needs only, for a short period of time while the person gets back on their feet. The role of the President is to lead the economy -- not to parent us personally -- so that people indeed do have opportunities open to them.

President Obama, blessed coming into this with a Democratic Congress, didn't heed those needs. He gave us instead MORE entitlement promises. "Kids" over 26 from wealthy families that can afford to continue coddling them, who are blessed to be covered by a private insurance plan themselves, got promised care under their parents' plan. Who pays for that exactly? The young healthy under 26-year-old who is struggling himself to make ends meet, who now has to incur an expense which he likely will see no benefit. (Healthy young people simply do not incur the same medical expenses as the ill with pre-existing conditions, middle age Boomers confronting their own morality, or the elderly, often more wealthy themselves than those starting out. Do you think -- be honest here, please -- that this helps the poor, struggling upward Horatio Alger's still believing out here? Honestly?)

Again and again,
we see the entitlement programs "reward" the wrong types. If you can't afford a baby, please don't conceive and bear her on the public dime. Practice preventative maintenance (contraception) or if it will be a struggle from the get-go to bear, clothe, shelter and feed this new little life, admit it and give her up at birth to some loving family that clearly can. Plus, please don't breed again until you are in a better financial situation.

Do you see that as racist advice? Why exactly? Don't plenty of white mothers rely on these programs for their white or bi-racial children too? Is that ok? Even when the money is running out, and we're calling for those making money to subsidize more and more the growth of the underclass?

I don't think it's racist to address, honestly, these issues.
I think it's simply common sense. Seeing what's coming demographically (Hel-lo Boomers!) and understanding that unless we reform our definition of "safety net" now, more and more people will fall on their head in the future. Including the truly needy.

But if we can change expectations and lifestyle choices, if we can build back the economy bit by bit (as Mitt Romney did with the SLC Olympic Games, and plenty of underperforming companies), then maybe the underclass can learn something from the successful non-libs, black white and Hispanic, in how they got what they did. Hint: it really ain't all about being born with a rich daddy, no matter how much the media would like to sell that meme.

Most of us understand, like it or not, America is still the best, greatest hope for so many seeking out a land of opportunity. Not of entitlements, not of handouts, not of long-term paternalist programs that promise to provide good health, healthy food, medical care, good educations, clean air and water, etc. etc. etc. all for free, without anybody working for it themselves.

Nope nope, a thousand times no.
America is rejecting that language, just as we rejected the bloated liberal programs and polices that discounted merit and artificially got us here. If you can compete, and you can do better than the next guy in the seat next to you, you win. Just like in sports, there's no "fixing the game" to help the preferred you pity.

Sure, keep the safety nets, but keep them in reserve. For the people that really need them. All us others, it's ok to draw short term, but eventually, you've got to be flexible, cut back and adapt, as necessary. Elite liberals don't really know much about this. They've never had to practice thriftiness, it seems.

If you really care about America's poor though, you'll stop carving us up into this racial group or that, and start concentrating on the roots of the problem: too many high-end elites still feeding at the public trough, who expect others to pay their bills. Did Mitt Romney and his family do that, like the Kennedy bloated legacy? I don't think so... whether this election is about substance, or just hangin' on to the status quo, remains to be seen.