XPost: humanityquest.compassion, alt.social-security-disability,   
   alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   Truthfully, that is NOT exactly what he said, but there is a point to   
   my headline: Democrats think that social obligations should be   
   fulfilled by the government.   
      
   The social insurance state was not originally intended to substitute   
   government for family and church assistance to people in need but as a   
   backstop to ensure that people without others to assist them didn't   
   fall through the cracks. All else failing, the government would ensure   
   that nobody starved to death or was left to rot on the side of the   
   road.   
      
   Civilized societies do not view people as disposable; smart societies   
   do not try to substitute bureaucracy for the much more enlivening love   
   and community that are necessary to sustain us.   
      
      
   Tim Walz's story about his mom is unintentionally revealing in this   
   context. If we were to believe Tim, his mother would starve without her   
   Social Security check arriving on time.   
      
   That says more about Tim than about Social Security, the government,   
   Donald Trump, Republicans, or whoever he is trying to make a point   
   about. If this were literally true, Tim Walz is a monster.   
      
   Of course, it is not LITERALLY true. First of all, you have to work   
   hard to be food insecure in the United States. The only reason somebody   
   becomes food insecure is that there is some fundamental dysfunction in   
   the person or their caretaker. A child may have a drug-abusing parent,   
   for instance, which is a tragedy, of course, but not a failure of   
   society. We live in a country where, when people are in need, strangers   
   will fly in helicopters and drop off food and supplies at the drop of a   
   hat.   
      
   So what Tim is really saying is something different: the government   
   ought to be the primary caretaker for everybody, including his mother.   
   He shouldn't have to care for her; caring is a job to be outsourced.   
      
   That has been the ideological foundation of the welfare statists for   
   over a century. It is a foundational principle of Marxism, which aims   
   to substitute the state for the family. "It takes a village," as it   
   were, because it shouldn't be the parents themselves who raise children   
   or children who take care of their parents as they age.   
      
   Child care centers substitute for families. Schools substitute for   
   parents. Social workers determine your child's gender. Colleges teach   
   morality instead of churches. The government is there to take care of   
   you; in exchange, you only need to give your labor and your soul.   
      
   Friedrich Engels, it turns out, was the real prophet of Marxism. Karl   
   Marx believed in the economic inevitability of communism; Engles, on   
   the other hand, believed that communism would come about through the   
   destruction of the family and social institutions. It was a project,   
   not a historical inevitability, although a project that runs in   
   parallel with the historical inevitability of communism.   
      
   Both Marx and Engels see family relationships as an artificial   
   construct, and modern liberals basically concur. Walz has worked   
   assiduously to undermine family ties here in Minnesota--children can   
   liberate themselves from parents who disapprove of their gender   
   transitions and become wards of the state. They call it a "trans   
   sanctuary" state, but it is another way to divorce children from   
   parents and substitute the state for parents. Schools keep secrets from   
   parents; teachers substitute state morality for that taught at home and   
   in churches.   
      
   No doubt Tim Walz loves his mother and would not let her starve. But   
   his message is clear: the state over the family. He assumes his   
   rallygoers will sympathize with the notion that taking care of his   
   mother is the state's responsibility, not react in horror at the notion   
   he presents that she would languish in filth and starve were it not for   
   a monthly check from the government.   
      
   Social Security is here to stay. We have paid into it, and our economic   
   security is tied to it, so my quibble is not that it needn't be run   
   efficiently and reliably. I have paid into it for more than four   
   decades, so I want my meager return on investment.   
      
   But it appalls me to see a son so cavalierly describe his mother as   
   nearly destitute without the government's help. This man is a governor,   
   a candidate for Vice President, and a lifelong government employee.   
      
   If his mother needed a basket of groceries, couldn't he help her out?   
      
   It never occurred to him to answer that question.   
      
   https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/10/19/tim-walz-says-he-wont-help-   
   his-mother-buy-groceries-she-depends-on-the-government-n3795954   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)