Assuming one is poor enough to receive welfare and government assistance, and “stuck” living life this way forever, one would seemingly benefit from voting in politicians (Democrats) who support a perpetual expansion of the welfare state. However, in doing so, one would be supporting a state of affairs which is not sustainable in the long term. Eventually, a day of reckoning comes to every welfare state that kills the goose that lays the golden eggs by heavily taxing the best producers who fuel the engine of the economy, and dispense unearned benefits to those who don’t.

This day of reckoning for the State of California is very near. As of now, California legislators are drawing up a plan to severely cut welfare programs in the state.

What effectively happens under a socialist regime, with California as a prime example, is as follows:
1. The socialists crate a multitude of government programs and get people dependent on those for their life.
2. Eventually those programs bankrupt the treasury.
3. The programs are cut due to utter lack of money.
4. The poor, who are now hooked on government programs they thought they can depend on, are up a creek without a paddle.

So how exactly is this situation, crated by socialist policies that the Democrats advocate, exactly in the best interest of the poor? It is not!

And if one is poor but strives to, or eventually succeeds in reaching the middle class, voting in socialists is detrimental as well because under any socialist system, the middle class always ends up being squeezed the most.