According to Vice Presidential
Candidate Paul Ryan, America is a great nation of freedom, opportunity, and
success. Apparently, 30% of US citizens also mooch off of our government and
receive federal government handouts. Wait, what? According to a viral video
of Ryan, 20% of Americans receive over 75% of their income from the federal
government, making them sadly dependent on our government. Ryan also asserts
another 20% of Americans receive 40% of their income from the federal
government, making Americans reliant on our government, but not totally
dependent. Ryan speaks of a “tipping point”, sort of calling this a time when our
nation can no longer sustain so many dependent people, and aches from the
effect these people have had on our great nation.
Ryan lightens the
mood of this slightly depressing news by reassuring us that 70% of people are
either chasing after that American dream, or fantasizing about it. Is Ryan
basically stating that those who are not reliant upon the federal government
are currently living that dream? What about the people who are down on their
luck, and can’t seem to rebound during these tough times we have found
ourselves in? Are they part of the problem? How do we fix the problem? Ryan’s
speech leaves much unsaid and unanswered, and generalizes far too much. One of
Ryan’s key mistakes is that he claims that there is a cause and effect
relationship between American’s financial independence and the American dream,
when there truly is not. Simply because someone is financially independent does
not mean they are living a dream. There are some people who receive no aid, yet
live on the streets. Are they “living the American dream” simply because they
do not accept aid? Ryan seems to be correlating two separate ideas that do not
mesh. Being totally independent from government handouts does not equate to
having a picture perfect life, though Ryan seems to think it does.
The true issue with Ryan (and Romney’s) speeches in relation to government reliance and the American dream is that they generalize far too much. The idea of the American dream can be a nice, comforting one, but it can also cause problems in the sense that everyone’s definition of a satisfying life is different. No one can say that someone living in a tiny one-bedroom apartment paid for by the government wants to have a welfare-reliant status, because everyone’s story is different. Maybe they lost all their savings in an investment gone awry. Maybe they went through a tough time and lost their job. For Ryan to state that 30% of people in this country want to be dependent on the federal government is erroneous and simply unfair. This situation cannot be seen as black and white. Ryan backs up his numbers through the tax federation. However, listing all the statistics in the world will not help Ryan prove that this “30%” actually enjoys living like this. Some people undoubtedly want to soak up all the benefits they can. We’ve all seen someone drive up in a $50,000 car and then buy milk and eggs using WIC or food stamps. However, we cannot let these people define a whole “30%”. Not everyone is looking for handouts and donations. Some people are just trying to get by and achieve their own variation of the American dream. Who is Ryan, Romney, or anyone else to try and undermine that by saying that this status is what he or she truly desires?
Ryan and the Tea Partiers are a disgrace to the memory of Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"We’ve all seen someone drive up in a $50,000 car and then buy milk and eggs using WIC or food stamps."
When and where did you? And what difference does it make?
You're buying into the Big Lie that Ryan is trying to spread -- that there is a permanent underclass, rather than people temporarily going on assistance and then getting off again. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be eligble for food stamps for the 3-6 months it would take me to find another job. Since I paid cash for my car, I wouldn't bother selling it and buying a cheaper one until at least a year of unemployment.