John Stossel Explains That War On Poverty Failed Because Ladies Want Too Much Free Stuff
Impacted bowel John Stossel dropped by the set of Fox & Friends yesterday to drop a little truth on hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Steve Doocy, and whatshisname, the guy who is always squinting in puzzlement like he’s losing a battle of wits with a doorknob. Stossel was there to talk about the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty and how it has backfired by making all the ladies want to stay single because having a man in the house means smaller welfare handouts from the government. This is good news for those of you who are tired of going to family gatherings and answering the question, “When are you going to get married?” Now you can respond with Never Grandma, because getting married means I’ll have to stop suckling at the government teat and I want to keep my sweet, sweet welfare checks that are paid for by taking money away from society’s makers like John Stossel.
Stossel also mansplained to Fox’s audience of shitwitted spunk weasels that the War on Poverty had worked for about five years before the ladies figured out the scam and adjusted their behavior accordingly. Women! So devious, amirite fellas? Of course Stossel cited no facts or figures to back up this claim, nor did he identify which anti-poverty programs that began in 1964 had turned poor people into a bunch of scamming moochers by 1969, and whether any of those programs have been adjusted or reimagined or even ended in the ensuing forty-five years, because John Stossel is a free libertarian and cannot have his arguments constrained by such luxuries as evidence.
And my point is that you’re going to get income inequality when people are free. Some people will do much better than others, and that’s okay because under that system the poor do better too.
Exactly who is not free right now, and how will the impoverished do better when the poor, shackled slaves finally are free? Wait, we know this one: free market trickle-down rising tide blah blah.
Also, Stossel asked some people on the street if it bothered them when celebrities make ungodly amounts of money and wondered why people are okay with Tiger Woods having an income of eleventy billion dollars a year but not okay with CEOs raking in boatloads of cash. We’d suggest it is because a) Tiger Woods is not the head of a corporation that employs thousands of people and b) because if Tiger Woods was a lousy golfer he would not make much money (remember the endorsement deals he lost a few years ago after his marriage failed in a spectacular and public inferno), but CEOs often get multi-million-dollar severance packages even when they fail and run their companies into the ground while the company’s middle-class employees get twenty minutes to throw their stuff into a banker’s box and get out of the building.
Our conclusion: John Stossel seems very familiar with the mindset of useless, overpaid corporate hacks. But not so much women. Color us unsurprised.