As if the opposing argument, that there *IS* such a thing as a free lunch that nobody has to work for - is such a successful program.
Last week the liberal media was dribbling all over itself about the NY Times' piece "Invisible Child", about NYC children in homeless shelters. As hard as the piece and the pundits tried to create the perception that government was failing these children, reading pointed to the obvious problem; the parents.
As income tax season neared, the whole shelter was abuzz; the Earned Income Tax bonanza was on the way. Thousands of dollars would be coming the way of each shelter family, who each expressed plans to get apartments, move out of the shelter, etc. etc. etc. Yet year after year, when the money arrives, it gets wasted on frivolity, such as the father in the story getting his gold teeth covers back out of hock.
The sob sister writer bemoans the fact that the refrigerator has only leftover Chinese takeout and grape drink. Really? If you're so hard up for cash to feed your family, why are you buying Chinese takeout? Why don't you buy a chicken yourself at the supermarket, and some vegetables...? Rhetorical question really, because the shelter provides free meals, and the kids get free meals in school.
(In snotty leftard voice) "Yeah, but what about the summer when schools are closed?"
Incredibly, NYC opens the schools in the summer just so kids can get a free breakfast and lunch year 'round.
And the NY Times story's pictures of the shelter apartment the family had, showed what? A flat screen television. Interesting. An electric piano. Interesting.
Liberals can't admit what they've been doing for decades isn't working....and that their only solution is more of what isn't working.
