Jim DeMint wants class genocide

By franchising a national chain of debtors' prisons, Jim DeMint will reinvigorate the American economy.

 

I'll pay back any unemployment when Jim DeMint gives up his lifetime health insurance if and when he ever leaves the Senate.

 

As we showed on the other thread, the unemployment benefits issue is a very, very complicated one.

 

Michael Medved often makes the same point about people who can't feed their children before school.

At some point, isn't he right? Isn't feeding your children your first & foremost responsibility? If you are unable to do that, the odds are increased that the children are in an unsafe home environment.

I mean, seriously, if your kids aren't fed, the odds are pretty high that the problems in that home go beyond just financial problems.

And, by giving them breakfast, are we just putting a band aid on a much bigger problem. Shouldn't we look into whether these children would be better off some place else?

And, what do these kids eat on the weekends? What do they eat during the summer?

Poverty is no crime and I'm not trying to demonize anyone. But, if you're failing your most basic responsibility of feeding your children, something is seriously wrong. If the only problem is poverty, fine. We should work with the parents. Give them financial counseling and job training -- whatever. But, if the problems go further than poverty, action has to be taken in the best interest of the children.

 

You probably wouldn't mistake a government unemployment office for the Stanford business incubator but we may get more people selling bottled water or droopy flowers at intersections.

 

It seems galling to us that politicians would drum up animosity against the unemployed, in this economy, to score political points. But I guess we have to remember that 10 percent unemployment still means 90 percent employment. So if you are Jim DeMint and you go around blaming the unemployed for their plight - and I imagine that there is a considerable percentage of unemployed who are minority voters who wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway - then you are basically giving a hand job to the 90 percent that are employed, telling them in so many words that they are employed because they are morally superior to those no-goods on the unemployment line. This is exactly what they want to hear.

 

The 16-year-old kids who are having kids right now are the same kids whose 16-year-old parents couldn't take care of them 16 years ago.

 

DeMint Plan, Phase II: Having benevolently sold indentured sent America's hungriest children to his coast-to-coast chain of workhouses poorhouses reformatories charter schools, upon graduation they will be absorbed by a permanently underemployed underclass ground into a source of ready protein for more productive citizens put to work at the Cinnabon.

 

I don't get the sense that DeMint et al. are "blaming the unemployed for their plight." And while I'm certainly skeptical regarding what he seems to be suggesting -- that beyond some undefined point in time some portion of unemployment benefits should be treated as a loan -- I don't think it hurts to try to think through how one might improve the system. As another thread [crossthread/] suggests, however, how the system should work is a pretty contentious issue ...

 

See, I even find myself even somewhat agreeing with DeMint, except I know what it's like on how hard it is to find a job, and I resent the fact that someone who is sitting at the top of the food chain is pointing fingers at the most vulnerable members of society.

Many of the examples of the poor people in the story were single moms. I know one had her husband die, but the others don't mention a father. Well, where is he and why isn't he stepping to the plate to support the kids so that they don't go hungry in the morning? At some point, like Jesse Ventura once famously told a struggling single mom, is it society's problem that you opened your legs to a jerk?

I agree, there needs to be programs to get the poor to become more self-sufficient. And there also needs to be a strong safety net for those who, through life circumstances such as poor health, don't end up impovershed because they get sick. Problem is, you have people who always want to cut them, and it's easy to demonize those who don't have the resources to fight back.

 

It actually is. However unfair it may seem that a person who is poor through their own bad choices gets help, a kid growing up in that kind of poverty is much more likely to grow up and become a criminal or just a terminal drain on society, taxing society for a whole lot of money and resources. And that cost is avoidable with some sort of well-planned social safety net. It's not a handout. It's a purchase, an investment in the future.

 

Totally in agreement. It sucks that some "adults" make ridiculous choices, but I don't want their kids locked down as a result of it.