2013 July 27 Saturday
The Gray Lady's Faith In Government Social Programs

Eduardo Porter of the New York Times nicely encapsulates the American left-liberal world view when he finds an inconsistency between conservative support for larger families and conservative opposition to taxpayer subsidies for poor families.

But there is an odd inconsistency in conservativesí stance on procreation: many also support some of the harshest cuts in memory to government benefit programs for families and children.

The liberal mind in a nutshell: if you are for something and you are not for government support of something then you are being inconsistent. They can not imagine another way of looking at it. They can't imagine private sphere activities independent of government policy. They can't imagine (or, rather, do not want to imagine) downsides of government intervention.

Porter likens government spending programs to investments. He has not seriously looked at the ROI from different levels of spending controlled for IQ of the kids. The US government has little impact on how children turn out once born.

And the 2014 budget passed by Republicans in the House cuts investments in children further

The biggest effect of government social programs for single mothers is to increase the number of low IQ women who have inevitably lower IQ kids. But Porter is spinning about investment.

Unless America's Left come to their senses and accept reality some bad trends are going to keep playing out. Even if the Left came to their senses and decided they wanted to play hard ball with the lower classes it would take a few decades for harsh love policies to play out and make reproduction more responsible. I think offspring genetic engineering will come to the rescue before the Left become realists about human nature.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 July 27 12:34 PM 


Comments
Engineer-Poet said at July 27, 2013 3:27 PM:

A more cynical way of looking at the issue is to note that every solution touted by "progressives" increases the power and budgets of government bureaucrats, so that's probably the purpose of their proposals.

Sorry, did I say cynical?  I meant realistic.

Matt W. said at July 27, 2013 9:56 PM:

Eduardo Porter is an enemy of humanity. Funding poor people to have families makes life harder for everyone, not the least of which are the poor themselves. I am all for helping the poor, but the help should include incentives for people to *not* have kids until they can afford them on their own resources. And righteous righties who support big working class families are scumbags too. They just want more cheap labor (and people to send off to unnecessary wars). The rich and powerful on both sides want more cannon fodder to empower themselves and screw over the middle class.

Abelard Lindsey said at July 28, 2013 10:14 AM:

if you are for something and you are not for government support of something then you are being inconsistent. They can not imagine another way of looking at it. They can't imagine private sphere activities independent of government policy.

Randall,

I think is more fundamental than this. Liberals are either incapable of or refuse to understand the very concept of productivity. This is why they fail to differentiate between people who have kids and are able to support them through their own productivity and those who have kids that must be subsidized by other peoples' productivity. Indeed, I would characterize the entire liberal-left worldview as nothing more than an evasion of productive effort. In other words, it is nothing more than parasitism.

Even Karl Marx admitted in one of his books that Communism and Socialism are inherently parasitical when he admitted it was capitalists who actually create wealth.

tgmoderator said at July 28, 2013 11:54 AM:

Offspring genetic engineering may come to the rescue; however, it will come to the rescue in China--not here in the
USA.

aandrews said at July 28, 2013 6:27 PM:

"Mr. Porter began his career in journalism over two decades ago as a financial reporter for Notimex, a Mexican news agency, in Mexico City."

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/p/eduardo_porter/index.html

Duh!

aandrews said at July 28, 2013 6:43 PM:

Here's some more Gray Lady faith, at that same address:

Immigration and the Labor Market By EDUARDO PORTER

By the accounts of many economic studies, an increase in immigration is likely to leave most American workers better off.
June 25, 2013, Tuesday

And that's the Establishment sentiment, too.

As Peter Brimelow keeps averring, this is not going to end well.

Randall Parker said at July 28, 2013 9:30 PM:

aandrews,

It is already not ending well. I would describe us as being already well past the beginning of the end stage.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©