Hidden, Subtle Underclass Coddling

One of the greatest misconceptions among liberals and normal folk is how poor people manage to live. How do they have kids? How do they exist? Oh gosh, how do they even live? You’re well aware of the the exasperated tone used when considering the plight of the poor. The progressives have set up a jobs machine for themselves that creates a situation in which we socialize the losses for every dysfunctional decision a person can make. We have divorced consequences from actions, resulting in disastrous cultural results.

There was a tremendous tweet about the network of government agencies designed to help the poor.

That is absurd. It is impossible to follow. Zero Hedge has tracked the disincentives and corrosive effects of such lavish welfare systems in different states. Think tanks are even on-board with the analysis that welfare undermines marriage and healthy family formation. Any homosexual thinking that gay marriage would earn them benefits is the last American to know the scam. The progressive goal is to remove any self-sufficiency and non-government bonds and replace them with dependencies that are contingent on one’s status with the government.

It is beyond money and benefits. When Nixon and Moynihan tried to install a UBI, the goal was to remove those programs to be as efficient as possible. The other consequence was a class of unemployed former “do-gooders” that actually contribute to the malaise and dysfunction of the underclass by enabling them. They have to maintain dysfunction, or else the need for those do-gooders dries up. With a check in the mail and no programs, there is no one who has a vested interest in the dysfunctional government consumer not improving.

One program that crossed my path is a curious one in Ohio. There is a Furniture Bank of Central Ohio. This helps the poor get free furniture to furnish their apartments and homes (rent paid for by you with Section 8 and welfare). Furniture is donated, so there is no money on the government ledger. This actually is not for the poor. This is for the poor that have social workers and case managers. These can be parolees, recovering addicts, and even people in the child protective services (CPS) web. Yes, you or your partner beat your kid to a pulp but get furniture if you promise not to do it again! A case manager refers a person in a “difficult situation,” and said person can pick up 14-16 items for their home. One has to be part of the system to reap the benefits of the system. Employed college graduates with mountains of debt do not reap this benefit. There is no starter apartment for them.

This socializes the losses because a recovering junkie who gets his or her kid back needs a place to stay. No way is he or she moving back in with their parents, if they even know them, so they need furniture. They may be a junkie, but they are not such a loser that they should be forced to have to live with their parents again. What women needs to carefully plan or avoid pregnancy or consider the merits of her child’s father if Uncle Sam will keep her out of third-world poverty? This program enables them to have a place with relative comfort, so they do not have to face the hardship and consequences of their bad decisions. They never have to learn and never have to feel shame. CPS sends their kid back to them. The junkie’s parent never has to face the problem of their dysfunctional kid being dropped on their door again. No one faces consequences.

A case worker explained to me the story of a woman who had her twins taken away due to drug offenses. At the Family Court session, the judge asked the maternal grandmother (father was in jail) if she would take the twins while the mom was in rehab. Grandma said no because she liked going to the bar on weekends, as well as bingo and bowling twice a week. Those twins went into the system. Mom got them back after her rehab stint, and mom also got new teeth because her old grill was rotten. The sickest part? Mom had an older child that she lost custody of (the father won) due to her drugging and drinking. Once custody was stripped on kid one, she got knocked up by father two. She is free to cause mayhem on society and her children with the knowledge that the system will always be there to make sure her kids are not walking the streets barefoot.

We are told it’s the “good” thing to help these people. What is the help? The help seems to be in making their life free to chase fun, whether drugs, drinking, or sex. They all get to pursue their fun in relative comfort provided by you and I. The kids can be snatched up and sent to Head Start while mom does… whatever recovering addicts of child abusers do… and then the kid comes home to sleep in a bed and sit on a couch, rather than on milk crates and cinder blocks. Mom can still eat plenty (EBT from you and me!), pop pills (Medicaid, from you and me!) and today we see our poorest citizens are also our fattest citizens. Take a one day staycation and watch daytime television. Not the programs, but watch the television advertisements. You will see antidepressant ads, lawyers to help with Social Security filings, ads for class action lawsuits for mothers of children with birth defects due to mom using antidepressants while pregnant.

These are nice things, but in being nice, despite the original person’s breach of the social contract, are we not doing society harm? Like a genome accumulating mutations, how long can society rack up dysfunctional members? The entire system is set up to keep the dysfunction staggering along, so that we can employ a myriad of people doing what families were formerly in charge of doing. The progressives destroyed the family, atomized existence, and then built up government structures to replicate the family. We are failing miserably. Family is more than transactions, actions, and money. The love, investment, and connection felt between active family members transcend whatever PowerPoint presentation goals a man made program could ever imagine.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. If we were unable to pervert the maternal instinct and confuse women into taking on professionalized caring roles on behalf of the state rather than in their own home, how on earth would our national economy survive?

  2. And what happens when austerity inevitably begins? The underclass have no structures or norms to support themselves without the state. Going to be terrible mess.

    1. You needn’t worry about the white underclass in austerity. The control mechanisms are already well established. They’ll simply drug themselves out of existence.

      Cheap carbs, opiates, pornography, booze — they’ll eat, jerk-off, and drug themselves out of visible society. Already happening. Cut food stamps officially, increase black market painkillers unofficially. It all balances out.

      And, to be honest, for most of the true underclass, it’s a tragedy that would happen one way or another.

      Those who suffer are the lower-class — those just on the cusp of the underclass, but who work, who try to put together decent lives, raise children in some sort of structure — but who see their family members, their neighbors, their children, slipping away from such structure and falling into underclass degeneracy.

      Those are the people you need to worry about. The underclass has nothing to lose, and nothing to fight for. The lower-class has everything to lose, and they see that loss all around them.

  3. “and today we see our poorest citizens are also our fattest citizens

    Indeed. Contrast this with the Apostle Paul’s view that if you don’t work, you don’t eat. We are far ‘nicer’ to people on the dole than Jesus or the Apostles would be. However, the point isn’t really the poor. The point is makework jobs for ‘nonprofit’ and ‘charity’ workers.

  4. Poor traditionally supported by the public esp. the medically unable to work (blind, crippled, etc.), orphans and widows. The woman who went around committing adultery / fornication/ having illegitimate children while drunken or on drugs would starve, or perhaps be stoned by her own parents. If the parents were that responsible, hopefully they would take the children and they would not suffer as such. In any case, it wouldn’t have accumulated generation upon generation as such.

    “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Comments are closed.