Obama Welfare Approach Makes Recipients Slaves to the State

Barack Obama has been honing his perspectives about inequality, economic injustice and populism during his entire political career. Tutored in his earlier days by such famous anti-Americans as Jeremiah Wright, the minister who coined the phrase “God Damn America,” and Bill Ayers, who bombed numerous facilities as a member of Weather Underground in the 1960s, Obama believes that our country is unfair to many of its citizens and other people around the world. And, it is his objective is to diminish American exceptionalism.

This perspective drives Obama to state regularly that the wealthy class is no better than the French monarchs in the late 18thcentury or the czars in the late 19thcentury, who stole and lived excessively while their subjects struggled to survive.

Obama endlessly berates the wealth class in America about not paying their “fair share.” He blasts Republican efforts to decrease the heavy tax burden on the affluent, even though only 50% of Americans pay income taxes. And, most egregious are his comments that wealthy Americans are trying to eliminate welfare to line their own pockets.

The historical and economic realities of the latter are clearly not in anyone’s best interests. The chasm that Obama created between the affluent and the needy in his class warfare is not justified and is dangerous for the country.

Nevertheless, a problem exists. There are many people out of work and millions of people on welfare. The gap between the wealthy and the have-nots is growing. But, the culprit is not the Republican-controlled House of Representatives; it is the welfare system that Obama and Democrats are so intent on protecting.

Even Bill Clinton recognized that able-bodied welfare recipients should eventually work for pay rather than remaining wards of the state for all their basic needs indefinitely. The system enslaves the poor and makes them more dependent on the state every year of their lives. Welfare had to change according to Clinton, and putting those who can work into a job was and is still the answer.

But, a long-term plan was never truly implemented. America needs to end cash payments with no affiliated responsibility. Able-bodied Americans must work to receive support, and the U.S. must create state-sponsored jobs to execute such a plan.

The question is: would the left, the right, and the needy be happier if every able-bodied person in America worked for a living, even if their jobs were created by federal, state and local governments. And, only those who could not work would receive welfare as we know it today. I am not going to speak for Democrats or welfare activists; I will say that the wealthy in this country would be overjoyed with this outcome.

Why, you ask? If all able-bodied people worked, there would be no more wholesale welfare, and in the long run, assistance to the lower classes of Americans would wane. It would decrease because these people would be earning the money the state paid them, they would pay taxes (at least Social Security) and they would be motivated to improve themselves economically over time. If the state also provided training, many of these same people could also qualify for higher paying positions in private industry.

Currently, welfare rolls are increasing because there are no jobs and/or some people would rather receive a welfare check and stay home. I propose that the payments cease, and only those who show up for work be compensated. No work, no pay, no negotiation. The pay received should be equal to or greater than welfare payments. In the short term, the cost of this plan would likely be greater than total welfare costs. But, in the long run, the culture of destructive welfare could finally be a thing of the past.

Let’s examine the benefits that would accrue to the people who get the jobs, the state and the wealthy.

The Recipients of Jobs:

1. Welfare has always been described as a form of slavery. Being beholden to the state for everything including food and shelter is a demeaning circumstance. I believe that many people, in fact most, would gladly take a job and earn their keep.

2. The benefits of a good work ethic would give people more confidence and self esteem. Nobody wants to live off of charity.

3. Having a job will decrease crime in problem areas of our country. If a person is working, there is less need to steal from others to survive.

The State:

1. Federal, state and local governments will have a new and very large work force at their disposal. Granted, most of the jobs will be menial. But, with job training, a significant percentage could move on into more traditional, higher paying positions.

2. Tax receipts would increase. If nothing else, this group of people could help to support the Social Security System.

3. More money would be available to help those who cannot work for whatever reason including children and those who are disabled.

The Wealthy:

1. Our society would become more productive.

2. More people would be available at a lower cost for entrepreneurial projects.

3. Welfare costs, including the cost of a work program, would decrease over time as these people are assimilated into the traditional workforce. This would decrease taxes for the wealthy.

There will be critics. Let’s analyze those who will say that forcing people to work is a form of discrimination.

Liberal Democrats will lose the unconditional support of poor people because the latter would not be enslaved to them any longer. This could be a huge political event as sensible, moderate politicians are the source of increased prosperity for the needy.

Work is the key to a large problem in this country. Work opportunities will enable those in need to finally take care of their families and themselves. America has many more social issues to address, but this proposal is so sensible, it should be given careful consideration now.

How likely are you to make Mic your go-to news source?

Sal Bommarito

I spend most of my time writing a screenplay based on three of my published novels.

MORE FROM

Hillary Clinton says Republicans will be the "death party" if they pass health care bill

Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Republican's proposed bill on Twitter.

It's time to redefine the clitoris, according to sex education experts

"Words matter. They shape and mold our ideas and beliefs about our purpose, our bodies, our self-worth and our place in the world around us."

Al-Jazeera becomes a target amid Qatar diplomatic crisis

Gulf states are demanding the broadcaster be shut down.

5 blocks of London apartments to be evacuated over potentially flammable cladding

800 North London apartments will be evacuated following a fire inspection that turned up evidence that the buildings could be unsafe.

Tomi Lahren wants to rally women to her side after criticizing feminists and "pro-choicers"

"My view on abortion is not black-and-white," Lahren said.

These 5 states are drafting laws to limit protests on college campuses

The legislation is intended to protect free speech on campus.

Hillary Clinton says Republicans will be the "death party" if they pass health care bill

Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Republican's proposed bill on Twitter.

It's time to redefine the clitoris, according to sex education experts

"Words matter. They shape and mold our ideas and beliefs about our purpose, our bodies, our self-worth and our place in the world around us."

Al-Jazeera becomes a target amid Qatar diplomatic crisis

Gulf states are demanding the broadcaster be shut down.

5 blocks of London apartments to be evacuated over potentially flammable cladding

800 North London apartments will be evacuated following a fire inspection that turned up evidence that the buildings could be unsafe.

Tomi Lahren wants to rally women to her side after criticizing feminists and "pro-choicers"

"My view on abortion is not black-and-white," Lahren said.

These 5 states are drafting laws to limit protests on college campuses

The legislation is intended to protect free speech on campus.