|They got got.|
So many people seem to want a free lunch these days, and so few of them realize that there’s no such thing. The unintended consequence of being a compassionate human being is that the seedier elements of society will often take advantage of that compassion and nearly make it impossible to root them out.
I’m not going to use welfare as an example of this, because that’s all that’s ever used. Instead, I’m going to use ABC’s Extreme Home Makeover. I truly believe that they’re doing a good thing. They help out some seriously fucked families that are on the brink of ruin—some of them even beyond that point.
That philanthropy has been exploited, however, and in the following example we’ll see just how fucked up and shitty human beings can be. This is the true face of human nature.
This ordeal is with the Leomiti and Higgins family. The Leomitis invited the 5 orphaned Higgins kids into their home, and ABC came out to build a home to accommodate the Higginses to live with the Leomitis. The Higginses claim that the Leomitis systematically kicked them out of their house, and that it was all a ploy by the Leomitis to get a new house from the network.
That’s pretty awful, but here’s where it gets worse. The Higginses filed a law suit, not against the Leomitis, but agains ABC. Why? Because they say that ABC now owes them a house because “ABC promised us a place to live.” In this interview on the Arbams Report, Abrams argues that it’s ridiculous to sue the network, because the network had nothing to do with these kids getting kicked out. The Higginses attorney continually ignores the fact that the Leomitis should be sued, and asserts that it’s ABC’s responsibility to house these kids.
Let’s put aside the fact that the argument on the part of the Higginses and the attorney is completely asinine, and lets do a little bit of speculation. Let’s just look at the logic of the whole argument first. ABC stated that their goal was to improve the Leomitis’ home to accommodate the Higginses. At no point did ABC tell the Higginses that they were going to make sure that they all had a place to live for the rest of their lives, nor did they take on the responsibility of housing them. They merely sought to improve their living arrangements at the time of production.
Therefore, the whole argument the lawsuit is based on is fallacious. ABC held up their “promise,” to give them a place to live, and the kids got kicked out of that place. As Abrams repeatedly makes clear, the true people on the hook for this are the Leomitis. If anyone should be sued, it should be them.
So this begs the question: why the fuck are they suing ABC? My answer is that the attorney knows that the Leomitis are probably poor as shit. She probably figures that even if she sued the Leomitis, there’d be no reward for it. So instead, the lawsuit is directed at the American Broadcasting Company, a multi-billion dollar operation that constantly gives out free houses to people. She’s going where the money is. This has nothing to do with fairness or these kids getting a fair shake, because if that’s what it was about then the Leomitis would be getting sued. This is all about getting something for nothing.
My heart bleeds for the Higginses, honestly it does. It’s unfortunate that they had to lose their parents and then go through this ordeal, but we don’t even know why they were ejected from the Leomitis’ home. And what’s more, we’ll likely never know because they won’t be sued. Doesn’t make you wonder if the kids were justifiably thrown out? Perhaps the Leomitis couldn’t afford to care for the kids.
And now the Higginses all believe that someone owes them something. I hate to say it, but no one owes them a god damned thing. Everyone gets shit on in their life. There are tons of kids in
Africa who are not only orphaned, but have to live with AIDS for the rest of their life. Why don’t they get a free house? Why are the Higginses insisting that they be the lucky ones?
This scenario happens every day. Every damn day we have whole families stuck on life-time welfare, and they have no intention of getting off of it. And to make matters worse, we have a bunch of fools who think that they should be allowed to do so. A friend of mine, a social studies teacher, told me that when he asked his high-schoolers the question “should welfare recipients who are unemployed be made to work in order to receive benefits,” and an astounding 80% of his students responded “no, because that would be just like slavery.”
Sorry Liberals, but even a good deed has unintended negative consequences. We’ve created an entire generation of entitlement asshats that will grow to be nothing more than a burden on the taxpayer and hard-working Americans who are not content to be on the government teat.
Keynesian economics doesn’t work when you’re getting nothing in return from your “investment.”