The Fruits of Social Engineering

When LBJ started his “Great Society,” a person had to be a single head of household in order to qualify for welfare. Then, payments were based on the number of children that household was supporting. The result was the breakdown of lower income families — especially among the black communities. Now, we are seeing the result of this “progressive” attempt to alter the natural order of human society:

A ‘dad’ is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children
A ‘dad’ is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children with youngsters happy to forgo the latest iPad, toy or new pet, a survey has found.

Which brings us directly to something FDR said:


But, sadly, we shouldn’t be surprised for the same ideology that has destroyed so many low-income families is identical to the ideology that now claims gun control will solve violent crime.

Face it, the progressives are socially engineering the destruction of our own society because — in their arrogance — they have convinced themselves that they can alter the natural laws of this universe simply because they will it to be so.

16 thoughts on “The Fruits of Social Engineering

  1. Progressivism is the will to power. It’s that simple. Civil society is not possible under that type of relentless, remorseless tyranny.

    That’s why in those areas where the Progressive will to power has succeeded, civil society disintegrates into barbarism.

  2. Babies making babies, however it comes about, is a real problem in America. So many who have kids these days possess no parenting skills whatsoever.
    Perpetual welfare is another problem, Joe; you and I have discussed that in the past. The goal of welfare should be the End of welfare. I know one gal who had two kids. She was studying to be a nurse, and the governmet was footing the bill. I know, using our dime, unfair, unconstitutional.
    However, Tammy is now a nurse, she is off the dole, and she is paying taxes. Thus, she is one more American contributing instead of taking.

    • Welfare should be left to those who wish to WILLINGLY help others. It is the best, most efficient and “fairest” means to help those who are truly in need. And, if we would just get govt. out of the business of welfare, then the charity of this nation would handle that need — the TRUE need.

      If we haven’t destroyed too much of the Judea/Christian ethic that founded this nation, that is.

      • Joe, we are helping two families now, plus Joi tithes to her church. I don’t begrudge the that portion of my tax money that goes to help people, but I agree that if more people did give personally, welfare would not be needed. Trouble is, many cannot do both, and the tax is mandated, the charity is only required by one’s conscience. Getting from the current system to the private charity you envision and I prefer will take some finaglin.. So, right, let’s get started.
        It seems to me that a christian and caring populace will tend to elect those types to public office. When one has the power to help, whether that power is legitimate or not, well-meaning people will use that power, it’s human nature. But the federal government needs to be less involved, as per the Constitution, the states can handle their own problems a lot more efficiently than the federal government.

        If personal charity had been sufficient, there would not have been a need for a Great Society. Having said that, the funds spent to help the poor and the disenfranchised came from the future. It is easy to help everybody when you control the money-printer, and things got out of hand; we are paying for it now. also, with such easy largesse, it was no problem to redefine poverty upward, and include families formerly ineligible, which worked to make them more dependent. You think that was intentional,; I have my doubts, but the result is the same
        There will always be unemployed and poor families, Joe. Every time the unemployment rate drops, inflation fears heat up, there is upward pressure on wages, and the moneyed class turns off the tap, which curbs job creation, but protects their interest rates and capital.
        If having an underclass is necessary for these folks to preserve their standard of living, then it is incumbent upon them to help those people, either with charity or training.
        summing up, if possible, I say, yes, let’s encourage private charity, devolve the system we have from a federal one to the state level, with the goal of establishing private involvement at the local level.

        • Greg,

          Just keep in mind that our govt. has been actively trying to make it illegal for private individuals to care for the needy. This is to force people to depend on the govt. Also, this same govt. has been at war against those who would otherwise have cared for the needy. Political Correctness has many purposes, and undermining the good works of the faithful is one of the primary goals.

          In short, you are correct: we have a BIG mess on our hands. But that doesn’t mean we should or must accept more of the same. C.S. Lewis once said that REAL Progress is realizing you are on the wrong road and stopping, then starting to head in another direction. I think it is time we start heading back in a direction where things actually worked better (note: I said better. I think we need to give up on this irrational idea that we can create utopia on earth. that is a fool’s folly).

          • When I think of utopia, I think of the movie Time Machine, and the Eloi, who led a life of littel struggel and lots of food and shelter. All they had to do was consent to be eaten by the Morlocks. Someone is always gonna be lunch.

          • Just keep in mind that our govt. has been actively trying to make it illegal for private individuals to care for the needy

            Could you tell me just how this is being done?

            • Sure,

              They are talking about ending the charitable deductions; they are making it illegal to give food to the poor (they say it’s over health concerns); locally, they are trying to evict the shelter.

              Greg, you just have to watch the new media. They will report the stories for you. I just listed three. There are many, many more — and they span govt. from the local to the national.

              • “They are talking about ending the charitable deductions; they are making it illegal to give food to the poor (they say it’s over health concerns); locally, they are trying to evict the shelter.”

                Supporting example: It is considered Medicare fraud if you so much as give a patient “Well water”, or a “Home Grown Tomato” (seen this happen). Healthcare providers (example: Home Health Agencies), are not allow to supply any item to a patient that is not specifically ordered by an MD on the Plan of Care.

              • You see patterns and conspiracies where I don’t, but I do understand now you are talking about.
                The government likes things tidy, they prefer to deal in things they can count, even when they have no business counting them.
                Ye Gods, it isn’t like people bake a casserole and take to the food bank!. The canned goods are just as safe as they were in the store, and anything stale or rotten is going to be noticed without the assistance of a govt inspector. Maybe it is better to donate cash, but that should not be the gov’t’s call.
                In Naked Lunch, a book by William Burroughs, the author talks about authority addicts. Like all junkies, they tend to find one another. Malvida made one good point, that people will cede power to others quite readily.It’s a temptation we must resist, as power is never returned from whence it was taken.

                • Greg,

                  It’s not a “conspiracy.” The average govt. bureaucrat doesn’t do this as a part of some grand plan. Just as the average D or R voter doesn’t think they are supporting a greater scheme. You taught me that not every individual is a part of such plans. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that those who push the ideas do not have a plan — they do. This is what FDR meant when he said nothing in politics happens by accident. In this case, the plan is simple: make everyone dependent on govt. and they become easier to control. It’s that simple. From there, you just need to make sure you place like-minded people in the right positions and they will do your bidding without ever knowing or understanding what they are doing.

    • It is good there are success stories, however one in a million is not success and there are more joining the dole lines every day. Why? Because it is the best way for the progressives to defeat us.

      • What makes you all think that Progresssives want an impoverished America? Under Progressives, America attained its #1 status among nations, and became the envy of the world.
        I don’t think Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, not the best of buddies by the way, got together for evil laugh-fests over how they were planning to build America up, just so that its fall would be more dramatic.
        We have problems, Ken, that is true, but making up stuff, vilifying great Americans who only wanted the best for the country, isn’t going to help, not one bit.

  3. The Progressives understood completely what they ARE doing inEVERY action they take.

    What “problem or ill” has been “solved”?

    I am happy to hear of someone,as Gregg knows, who took advantage of opportunity and bettered her life.

    Unfortunately that is 1/1000 of 1% of those on govt. assistance.

    The goal of progressives.?

    Government as GOD.

    Man over Man.

    Dependence, subservience, obedience.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s