Old and busted: tweets that make sense. New hotness: class warfare.
No one working full-time in America should have to raise their kids in poverty.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 20, 2015
Don’t get me wrong, it sounds great.
In fact, let’s expand that statement: Nobody should have to raise their kids in poverty. Sure. You know, let’s take it a step further while we’re making random baseless declarations, nobody should live in poverty, period. With or without kids.
We should all live in Utopia where we’d ride around in the sky sitting on unicorns trotting along rainbow roads, and everyone would be rich without having to work a day in their lives. No one would ever get sick, or die, or have to bear an uncomfortable confrontation about violations of their safe space. There would be puppies and warm fuzzies, and every day would be Christmas.
However, in the real world, money exists and people have to earn it by providing goods and services that other people will pay for. There are plenty of people already living in poverty working a minimum wage job who simply choose to keep having children. So, is there a cap on the amount of children to which this asinine statement by Hillary applies? Or should this just apply to anyone, regardless of their life choices or responsibility they have in their own lives?
There is no rational argument to be made that because one has a full time job and a family to support, they are entitled to more money without regard to skill or competence. There isn’t a crisis in America of people being forced against their will to have babies, at least last I checked.
And what about those who are working several part time jobs? She did only mention those working full time. Do they get screwed out of this utopia where nobody is poor, and everyone has money to pay for their first world privileges? Are people actually paying attention to how little sense this entire statement makes? Where does personal responsibility kick in here?
Sarcasm aside, this statement embodies what is so maddening about liberal politics. Like many liberal ideas, at first glance, it sounds so compassionate and altruistic.
Democrats want people to have “access” to health care (note, when Democrats say “access” they mean “free”); Republicans would just leave people to die. Democrats want to keep families together by allowing illegal immigrants to stay here at all costs; Republicans want to deport them and tear their families apart.
So it shouldn’t have been surprising yesterday morning to see the same tired rhetoric: Hillary wants Americans to be able to provide for their families (and Republicans want poor people to starve, naturally). Hillary is so compassionate and cares so much about low income families that she doesn’t want them to raise their children in poverty. What a nice gal. Let’s elect her.
This leaves Republicans burdened with being the realistic, bubble popping party. Republicans, for the most part, are the ones who understand that just because something sounds nice and warm, doesn’t mean it’s realistic to implement. So they have to fight not only for their own policies, but against these empty “feel-good” statements, against the media spins, and against the demonization of them for daring suggest it would be beneficial to all of society for people to take a little more responsibility for themselves.
It’s astounding that Republicans ever win a single election; and it’s testament to how despicable most Democrats are and how unserious they are about foreign policy that it ever happens.
Quite frankly, I find it terribly sad that anyone still reads these baseless one-liners and doesn’t see right through them. I know we live in a country who voted for Barack Obama (aka The Great Divider) not once, but twice, yet it still makes my head spin that any credit is given to people like Hillary who prey on emotions to further their own agenda. But what do I know, I’m just a heartless Republican b****.