Sunday, August 06, 2006

Sex Subsidies

So I was talking to my sister-in-law and explaining to her that she should have wild sex and not worry about getting pregnant or anything.  She thought I was crazy, but I explained to her how the Democrats have set up a Welfare State, whereby they’ll completely take care of her and her future kids, and that they’ll totally subsidize her decision to have wild sex while not worrying about getting pregnant or married.  She still said I was crazy.  So I showed her this quote from the American Partisan, in an article by James Antle III titled Welfare State Begets Family Breakdown:

As Frum and others have demonstrated, means-tested welfare programs provide benefits to single mothers and their children and thus directly subsidize the decision to have children outside of marriage. Even popular programs tailored to the middle class, like Social Security and Medicare, absolve family members of their responsibility to one another and enable people to achieve a level of economic security in retirement outside the context of their families.

And it changed everything.  She’s a convert and immediately went out to start having all kinds of crazy-ass wild sex with every mammal she can get her hands on.  She’s not so interested in the welfare programs, per se; but the Social Security and Medicare benefits are totally “out the roof” in terms of absolving her from her responsibility to her other family members.  She was worried that she’d have to take care of her aging father.  But now she’s screwing like crazy, knowing that the Democrats have taken care of everything.  Needless to say, she is psyched.

Unfortunately, she left before I read this quote, which clearly shows the err of her ways:

Ultimately, just as you cannot simultaneously insure that people who work always are economically better off than people who do not while maintaining an adequate economic existence for those who do not work, you cannot simultaneously promote marriage and the traditional family while subsidizing lifestyle choices outside of those contexts.

And true enough, now that my sister-in-law is having all this crazy sex, she’s actually better off economically than people who work for a living.  And not just economically.  Her sex life is better too.  And this topsy-turvy situation has clearly unbalanced the nature order of things.  I guess she hadn’t seen this paradox coming, but that’s really to be expected from a crazy-ass bitch who’d rather take a handout from the government than to allow her future children to starve to death for the sake of preserving capitalism.  

Perhaps some day she’ll understand that.  But it’s unlikely as long as political correctness prevents people from saying that if many people believe that the government should take care of kids when the parents won’t, then we won’t need parents anymore.  And if the bureaucrats are allowed to help the people who need help, then they’ll surely intrude on the ones who don’t; which means that it’s better to let people starve them to allow bureaucrats to feed them.  

That’s actually a generous paraphrase of the last paragraph of the article I’m quoting, but I’ve been taught by the Democrats that work is for losers, so I’m just going to allow James Antle III to subsidize my work while I start screwing like crazy.  Not that I like screwing or anything.  I’m just trying to destroy the American family unit because I hate my life and want America to fail.  Because that’s how I base all my decisions: On whether or not the government will subsidize it and how likely it will be to destroy the American family unit.  Death to the parents!

No comments: