British Couple Poster Children for Ending Government Welfare

British Couple Poster Children for Ending Government Welfare



Back in the 1980s, Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman did a television series titled, “Free to Choose.” You can watch the series here.

In episode four, titled “Cradle to Grave,” Friedman focused on how well meaning government welfare can have negative side effects, such as “their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity.”

This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

Friedman spoke with a family in Great Britain, who testified to the fact it was dangerous to get a job because they would lose their benefits and then could lose their job. They preferred to stay on welfare.

Meet their modern day clones:

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

 

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Think this only happens in Great Britain?

Think again:

Here’s something else to consider:

image001-1.preview

Those who work for a living might want to put away shoes, hammers, and other hard objects to keep from throwing them through the computer. A new study shows that on average the government spends $168 per household on various assistance programs, one-fifth more than the median income of $137.

As the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee reported (after all, who else in government is going to do it?), welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.

At what point do liberals admit they’re doing more harm than good?

Answer:  never.

If they did that, they’d admit communism and socialism doesn’t work.  Instead, they just say it’s never really been tried.

It’s time to implement the exit strategy for the War on Poverty.  The casualties are too great.