When we think of Julia, the mythical moocher created by the Obama campaign, our first instinct is probably to grab our wallets and purses. After all, she symbolizes the entitlement mindset, as illustrated by this Ramirez cartoon.
But let’s think of this from Julia’s perspective and speculate about what it will mean for her life. Shouldn’t we worry whether a life on the dole will destroy her spirit?
Or perhaps that question is too abstract, so let’s make it more personal. Would we ever want any of our children and grandchildren to become wards of the state, living empty and hollow lives of dependency and never achieving anything?
The answer is no, of course, because we want our loved ones to have good and happy lives.
So why, then, would anybody want to impose that fate on a stranger? And this isn’t an abstract question. That’s what the welfare state does, every day, over and over again, subsidizing poverty and sloth.
And not just in the United States. I shared a truly sad video a couple of years ago showing how the British welfare state created multi-generational poverty and misery.
Now we have another video, this one from the folks at The Commentator, showing a news report from London that should anger all taxpayers. But it also should upset all people who care about rescuing people from government-induced emptiness.
I’m almost at a loss for words. At the risk of making sweeping judgments based on a short news clip, it appears that this poor woman’s life has been destroyed by government dependency.
And if you’re wondering how someone could ever allow themselves to be caught in the quicksand of the welfare state, don’t forget the story of Natalija, as well the expose about Danny and Gina. They are all healthy young people who made rational economic decisions to mooch since they could enjoy more comfortable lives.
The same thing happens in America. This story from Pennsylvania also shows that it can be far more lucrative to rely on handouts than to climb the economic ladder.
Just in case you think that’s an isolated example, look at this remarkable chart revealing how life on the dole can be much more remunerative than a life of striving and work (you can see similar charts for the U.K. by clicking here).
Let’s return to the woman in the video. I confess that I’m a bit conflicted. Should I feel sorry for Ms. MacDonald or should I look down on her?
The government has wrecked her life with handouts, yet there are probably people just like her who made the choice to avoid dependency and climb out of poverty. If you believe in free will, then she deserves some scorn.
That being said, I’m much more willing to heap abuse on Natalija, Gina, and Danny. They’re young and they should know better. Then again, in 30 years, how will they be different from the woman in the video?
These questions don’t have any good answers, so let’s close with a few examples of how the welfare state subsidizes some truly odd behavior.
- In the battle of the bums, we’ve had the spectacle of “Diaper Man” vs “Footless Hans.”
- In the contest for most despicable moocher, we have the “Florida Pedophiles” vs the “Gimme Babymaker.”
- In the perverse challenge match to subsidize one’s enemies, there’s the “Australian Jihadist” vs the “French terror suspect.”
And remember, you’re paying for all this!