“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. – Ben Franklin
The Welfare Voting Paradox
We have created a system where 47% of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax, yet they vote on how to spend everyone else's money. When more people vote for benefits than pay for them, is that democracy or legalized plunder?
Here is the genuine question nobody wants to answer: If politicians can win elections by promising more welfare to an ever-growing recipient base funded by a shrinking taxpayer base, what stops the spending? We have millions of voters whose "lobbyist payment" is their ballot for more handouts. That is not lobbying with cash, that is lobbying with votes.
Democrats need people on welfare like plantation owners needed slaves - a permanent underclass dependent on them for survival. Welfare recipients outnumber net taxpayers in many districts. You honestly think those politicians WANT people leaving the system? Of course not! They need their voting bloc.
The incentive structure is broken. Politicians get elected by promising free stuff. Recipients vote for more free stuff. Taxpayers fund the free stuff. And anyone who questions this cycle gets called heartless.
That is not a sustainable republic. That is a fiscal death spiral with a democratic veneer.
But what do I know, I am only someone who actually understands how incentive structures work and what happens when more people vote themselves benefits than contribute to funding them.
Council gets elected this way: they've campaigned on renter rights for years. Now renters make up ~70% of residents and form the voting majority.
Landlords and single-family homeowners are the enemy.
The agenda: "affordable housing" = more dense, low-quality apartments — trapping people in permanent renter status.
Those same renters could become owners, build equity, and gain real independence. But government prefers dependent citizens who don't own assets.
That's the game.
