President Bush gave a rousing, inspiring speech. He said some truly great things. This is what I liked:
I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.
Classic. I could barely contain my glee and admiration.
I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives…
Liberals seem not to understand that giving handouts, provoking class envy and racial hostility is not the way to help people help themselves.
Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess — filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve — and our economic future demands — a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.
I say junk it and start all over, or at least amend the 16th amendment.
[I]’ve met many workers and small business owners who have told me they are worried they cannot afford health care. More than half of the uninsured are small business employees and their families. In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase insurance at the discounts available to big companies. We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts…
There is a reason why people vote for Republicans when they start making money. Business-friendly as opposed to the big-business-is-evil mantra is what you want to hear when you’re turning a profit. We should be encouraging a broad range of people to start their own businesses rather than spewing all that tripe about “corporate evil” and insinuating that “profit” is an expletive. I direct my comments to billionairess Teresa Heinz Kerry’s second husband, who is currently living off the money of her first husband.
I have met too many good doctors, especially ob-gyn , who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
I hope John “Tom Cruise with a mole” Edwards was listening.
And so on and so forth.
I was also a little disappointed with the speech. Too “big government”, too “compassionate” and too little conservatism. This is what I did not like:
I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America’s seniors — so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage and nothing will hold us back.
According to the Ten Commandments, we are supposed to honor our parents. Part of honoring is taking care of them. But Bush’s comment goes back to what I said about the government’s role, biblically speaking.
Do Americans in general have a “moral responsibility” to take care of other people’s parents? In the Christian church, believers are supposed to care for true widows and orphans, but I don’t remember reading anything about those outside the church. Maybe I overlooked or misread it. I’m only human.
The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation’s founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.
Again, this harkens back to my comments on illegal ‘immigration.” This is a sore point with me, and I wish I knew what Bush has in mind with this amnesty-for-aliens scheme. Eek. I don’t want to get into that one again! It wore me out.
In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family friendly workplace.
This is a controversial topic for me. As a single woman with no children, I think it’s unfair that a married/unmarried woman with children can get flex time, but I can’t. If these sort of policies are implemented, they should be allowed for all workers. Besides, women with small kids need to be at home, anyway. Uh, oh. Did I say that? Must be the new medication.
By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families…America’s children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government’s health insurance programs…
Do you see a pattern emerging about what I didn’t like about the president’s speech? Noble sentiments, Mr. Bush, but somebody has to pay for all this stuff. Now if the government had its own money, which is doesn’t…
Bush waxed eloquent about doing this and providing that. I winced every time he promised something that had to do with my income. I wanted to hear an anti-big government speech. George Bush is hard on terror (kind of) and soft on domestic issues. But I still thank God that a Bible-believing man who pledged to take out terror is the Oval Office.
Other commentary: Robert Novak, Outside the Beltway, One Hand Clapping, Michelle Malkin, Blogs for Bush, HobbsOnline, The Hunter’s Herald and VodkaPundit (others will be added as I find them).
Stay tuned for my electrifying commentary on the “speech” given by the elitist John Kerry. Electrified by Kerry? Maybe I’ll re-think that part.
Update (6:03 p.m.): It’s been brought to my attention that this post title may be confusing. I had a few ideas in my head, but when I started writing, other ideas took over. Alternate post title:
“George Bush: The Big Government, Compassionate-Even-If-It-Kills-Us, Tough On Terror (Sort Of), Texas Swagger-Walking Man I’m Voting For Anyway.”
Ms Barber as I told you earlier this week about my interest in what my Commander in Chief had to say. I woke up early to catch the entire speech (Gen Franks wasn’t bad either GO Army)Please check out what I wrote http://hunterherald.wedblog.com/blog/_archives/2004/9/3/135033.html
I am truly upbeat
take care Demond
Comment by Demond S. Hunter — 09.03.04 @ 1:20 pm
Sorry, Faheem. If you want people to read your blog, you have to earn your readership just as I did. Insulting the owner of this domain gets you and your blog URL kicked out. - Admin
Comment by Faheem — 09.03.04 @ 1:44 pm
All in all, agree with Bush in each and every issue or not, the bottom line is stated by La Shawn with 120% agreement, “But I still thank God that a Bible-believing man who pledged to take out terror is the Oval Office.” That’s right you liberals out there, a Bible-believing and God-fearing man as Head of State, in the Oval Office. And for 4 more years. So take that. Go ahead and squirm.
Comment by noah — 09.03.04 @ 2:01 pm
I agree with your assessment, La Shawn — It was a fine speech.
Go BUSH!
But I did have one reservation…
Comment by Dave — 09.03.04 @ 2:11 pm
Man, I hate it when liberals try to tell me what to do! Maybe I should re-post “Queen Of My Domain.” I’m paying for this bandwidth and I can do what I want with it.
Comment by Faheem — 09.03.04 @ 2:31 pm
La Shawn, do I sense a bit of inconsistency here? First you say you are against handouts which welfare is often considered, but then you say that mothers of small children should stay home. I am a long-time Republican and a Bush supporter but I completely disagree with his approach to welfare.
One way that we Republicans can improve upon our “compassionate conservatism” is recognizing the truly weak and helping them. Telling a mother to give up her children to childcare and then go do “community service” (one of the harsh requirements of receiving welfare aid) to be considered working is a slap in the face to those of us who truly recognize that raising children IS WORK!
True, welfare has changed over the ages from its creation when originally, it was meant to help single mothers stay home with their children. After the constraints to welfare were dropped (like putting up unmarried single moms in homes together), then women started getting welfare without any moral responsibilities.
So I agree with Bush that to receive welfare, one must WORK. But I’m afraid that he and the general population no longer considers taking care of one’s own children as true work. When you have the likes of Star Parkers (I know she is one of your personal favorites) who abused the system terribly, speak out on behalf of welfare, while ignoring examples of women who used the system as the way it was meant to be used, then no wonder the negativism toward welfare recipients.
Just a comment to one of the few points in Bush’s speech that truly bothered me. I’m still voting for him because he stands for much more - pro-life, pro-family (man/woman), and unwavering in his fight against terrorism. I’m just praying for him to surround himself with folks unlike the Tommie Thompsons and Star Parkers who lack true understanding in reforming the “working” mom who needs financial help while raising her children.
Other than that little inconsistency, you’re pretty much on the money in most of your opinions. Keep up the great work!
Connie
Comment by Connie — 09.03.04 @ 2:56 pm
Is Conservatism Dead And Buried? (La Shawn Barber)
Is Conservatism Dead And Buried? (La Shawn Barber)
Trackback by Dummocrats.com — 09.03.04 @ 3:00 pm
No, not inconsistent. Idealistic, perhaps. In an ideal world, women would wait until marriage for “things you do when married” and have babies with a husband. But we’re living in this world. As far as mothers on welfare are concerned, that’s a hard one for me and one I’ve been challenged on before. Maybe I’ll blog about it.
By the way, check out a book called Day Care Deception. The author agrees that there are situations where women must work, but these “hard cases” shouldn’t shape policy.
Comment by LB — 09.03.04 @ 3:10 pm
LB, words have to be matched by deeds. GWB can repeat, over and over, “government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives,” but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s the biggest-spending US President since LBJ. As Andrew Sullivan insightfully described Tuesday night’s convention rhetoric, “The evening began with a series of speeches trumpeting vast increases in federal spending: on education, healthcare, AIDS, medical research, and on and on. No, these were not Democrats. They were Bush Republicans, extolling the capacity of government to help people, to cure the sick, educate the young, save Africans from HIV, subsidize religious charities, prevent or cure breast cancer, and any other number of worthy causes. The speakers were designed to target certain demographic and interest groups, just as the Democrats used to. The notion that these things are best left to the private sector, or that spending needs to be slashed in the wake of rising debt, or that the race of a speaker is irrelevant: all these are now Republican heterodoxy.”
Comment by Peter — 09.03.04 @ 3:39 pm
Pres, Bush says that his #1 role is to defend the country. He is right but in practice he is a phony. The borders are still mostly wide open and only 5% of the containers coming into the port are being searched. If an attack happens on his watch and can be connected to someone who crossed the border, he should be impeached and removed from office. Pres. Nixon’s corrupt Attorney General John Mitchell once said, “Watch what we do, not what we say.” Good advice. Bin Laden has not been captured, terrorism has increased.
By the way, I am not a Democrat and I believe that not only should Clinton have been impeached but that he should have been removed from office. Bush’s talk is cheap as long as the borders are open and the containers are unsearched.
Stan in San Diego
Comment by stan — 09.03.04 @ 3:41 pm
Connie,
1. Women should get married before they have kids.
2. Women should stay home with their young children.
If you mess up on #1, why should the gvt provide you with #2? The gvt’s job is not to fix my mistakes. If you have kids out of wedlock, you should go to work to support them. If you wanted to stay home to raise your kids, you should’ve thought of that before you got a little too friendly with your boyfriend.
BTW, I’m currently staying home with my baby. But if my husband were to die (God forbid), I’d put her in daycare & go back to work in a heartbeat. It’s way more *unfair* for me to have to put my kid in daycare for something that’s not remotely my fault (hubby dying vs. no hubby in the first place)… But life isn’t always fair. And isn’t it unfair to women who did it right & got married first that their husband’s hard-earned $$ is being eaten up in taxes to support the women who got pregnant out of wedlock (many on multiple occasions - it’s not an “oops” on your 4th time, sorry)!
I’m not trying to be mean, but seriously, life doesn’t always work out the way we think it *should*, and ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!!
Comment by Mayflower — 09.03.04 @ 4:14 pm
President Bush is fiscally irresponsible, he is the only president to ever lower taxes while going to war. The deficit future generations of Americans have incurred is huge. Programs which he has advocated and begun “No Child Left Behind Act” have not even received the proper funding, and without it are not used effectively, the intention of that program is also questionable as well. He has not created a single job, the only other president to do that was Hoover. It is well known that Bushes last two rounds of tax cuts were not as beneficial to middle class and lower class americans if the president should not be giving “handouts” then why is Bush giving handouts to the wealthiest people. I would like to know the way you would like to amend the 16th amendment. Im not against Business gaining a profit but im against Business gaining profit because the government intentionally fails to enforce environmental regulations. Bush gets “business friendly” to the point of government neglect.
Comment by Daniel — 09.03.04 @ 5:14 pm
Good one Mayflower. Thank you for saying it.
Comment by noah — 09.03.04 @ 6:07 pm
Hmph. Fact-check, schmack-check.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.03.04 @ 6:08 pm
Daniel, Did you know that there was 2 billion education dollars never used by the education system last year? The schools are getting ‘proper funding’, they just aren’t using it properly.
La Shawn, Terrific blog. I wasn’t 100% happy with the domestic agenda, but I’ve always known what Bush was about there. Besides, these things would have to be passed in the House, and that’s where the real conservatives are in charge. Seeing as his next 4 years will be in the lame duck status, I’m not getting too upset just yet.
Comment by RepJ — 09.03.04 @ 6:13 pm
Although its typical belief welfare encourages ‘laziness,’ its also important to note the good it does. Helping the disabled, those who cant find a job, those who simply cannot work, and pensioners who have already done their work.
Comment by Omar — 09.03.04 @ 6:22 pm
La Shawn and Mayflower, not all women on welfare are unmarried. What is the latest stat, one-third of women on welfare are married? So what shall there be, a separate welfare for the “undeserving” out-of-wedlock recipients and a kinder gentler welfare for the married women who were left alone through either abandonment or death?
As it stands right now, ALL women are punished for having to seek a helping hand for their single-motherhood dilemna. The government is using tons of money for child-care and job training. Training that results in employment barely over the minimum wage and child-care to pay someone else to “work” while caring for their children. (Ironically when a welfare recipient does child care for their own children it’s not called work, but laziness!)
Mothering is work no matter who does it - the unmarried or married. Welfare reform is not making these people “self-sufficient” but placing them in deeper poverty.
I am completely against women having children outside of marriage, and even sex outside of marriage for that matter. But we have to try some other reform that doesn’t punish the children because their mothers made poor choices.
But La Shawn, this is a hard topic for me as well and I admit I don’t have the answers for it. But if anything, if reform can include the fact that mother work IS work. That language alone would heal many!
Comment by Connie — 09.03.04 @ 6:27 pm
>>Hmph. Fact-check, schmack-check
God forbid that we should let facts get in the way of our reasoning ;o)
Comment by Richard Hall — 09.03.04 @ 7:04 pm
Taking the Lord’s name in vain? Eek.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.03.04 @ 7:06 pm
I enjoyed the President’s speech as well and agreed with most of it. I’m pretty much on the same page as you Miss Barber in regards to the promises made to seniors, etc. The money has to come from somewhere. Although he did state that he will work to simplify the tax code, I will believe it when I see it. It is easy to say what you will do but the proof is in the pudding!
As far as the question of welfare moms, I know welfare moms now and have known many in the past, it has always been the same scenario in my experience, man walks out on family, woman goes on welfare, or In many situations today, the man is not walking out but is being put out or is being dumped by the woman, then the woman goes on welfare.
In just about every case, even if they are married, the marriage is not taken seriously or they do not plan to marry if the man decides to stay, usually for the fear of losing public assistance. Truth be told, in every case though, and I do mean every case, they really did not need the assistance to begin with.
“As it stands right now, ALL women are punished for having to seek a helping hand for their single-motherhood dilemna. The government is using tons of money for child-care and job training. Training that results in employment barely over the minimum wage and child-care to pay someone else to “work” while caring for their children. (Ironically when a welfare recipient does child care for their own children it’s not called work, but laziness!)”
It is not punishment to require a person to work or earn what they receive. That is what a job is, isn’t it? So why is it wrong to require a person to work for welfare?
How are ALL women punished for being single moms, when all women are not single mothers? In regards to the so called dilemma of single motherhood, I think Mayflower said it best
“The gvt’s job is not to fix my mistakes.”
It would be interesting to do a study on welfare recipients to see what types of living conditions they are in, what possessions do they own or have access to, and what they spend their money on each day, as well as to see what efforts are being made to receive full time work or to start a business on their own.
This may be harsh but it is true, that welfare is not needed by the majority of people on it and probably never really was. It seems to only perpetuate a system of poverty, need and greed rather than prosperity, independence and charity.
Hard work develops character, integrity, and appreciation for whatever you earn, which in turn allows one to give freely to help others who are likewise ready and willing to work hard to earn their keep.
I think it was Larry Elder who stated in his book that “the hardest thing in life is to appreciate the value of something you got for nothing.” If we wish to maintain the integrity of our country, welfare reform, and ultimately, welfare elimination, needs to happen.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 09.03.04 @ 7:19 pm
Jerry, you’re the male version of me. Even if you happen to hold a different view on a particular issue someday, you’d still be the male-me.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.03.04 @ 7:26 pm
Jerry, in response to your following comments:
“It is not punishment to require a person to work or earn what they receive. That is what a job is, isn’t it? So why is it wrong to require a person to work for welfare?”
When disaster strikes a community and it’s is considered a disaster area, I don’t recall the government requiring folks to work to receive aid. Salvation Army, Red Cross, and etc. as well I don’t remember making people work to receive their help. Genuine relief is to help those who need it without expecting “community service” or “work” to receive it. What greater disaster is there than the breakdown of the family — abandonment of children by their fathers? Moral lapse of some mothers? That is true disaster and to make mothers work to receive their help is truly sad.
You also said: “How are ALL women punished for being single moms, when all women are not single mothers? In regards to the so called dilemma of single motherhood, I think Mayflower said it best “The gvt’s job is not to fix my mistakes.””
Jerry, please re-read my post. I didn’t say that all women are single mothers. I said that all the single mothers who seek a helping hand are the ones being punished. “As it stands right now, ALL women are punished for having to seek a helping hand for their single-motherhood dilemna.”
The government should not be required to fix anyone’s mistakes but no one has answered my question about whether there should be 2 kinds of welfare — one for the ones “at fault” and one for the ones not at fault? Or no safety-net at all for the ones at fault? Or no safety net at all for no one?
And your comment about welfare perpetuating a system of poverty, need and greed is a common myth. As if one’s morality or lack of is caused by government help. The people who abuse welfare appear to be void of morality BEFORE getting on welfare. That’s why you have those who use welfare the way it’s meant to be used and those who don’t. Star Parker is a great example. She was a wild girl before welfare came into the picture. She just used what she already possessed to abuse the system. She found that eventually she didn’t even need welfare to make it.
Jerry, it appears that our opinions of welfare are shaped by personal experiences. In your experience, you’ve met women who seemed to not have needed assistance. In my experience it’s been the opposite. The mother’s I’ve met and befriended by going to the doctor’s or church are truly poor and underserving of the oppression they receive in the form of government money-for-work.
So I can’t really blame you for thinking the way you do which is why I’m not so down on the Star Parker’s either because they attack welfare according to what they have experienced. Some how some way there’ll be a better solution to please all concerned — but then again that’s an ideal and not reality.
Comment by Connie — 09.03.04 @ 8:53 pm
First of all: Tremendous post, Jerry. Connie, you have a very poor understanding of the proper role of government. In your latest post, you bring up a point about government aid to disaster vctims via the Salvation Army and Red Cross. Neither of these organizations is a branch of the government, but are funded through private donations, which brings me to my next point. The government agency active in disaster areas is the corruption-riddled FEMA,
One of the resaons the founding fathers explicity stated that the government WAS NOT established for the purpose of providing assistance and relief to the poor and others afflicted by circumstances (a misinterpretation of the general welfare phrase in the constitution) has to do with the fact that government is by nature inefficient, with a tendency towards corruption. That’s why churches and other private charities are often so much better at helping out those vituous single moms whose husband left them or died. It is at the local level - through real people in your city and neighborhood - that such judgements (between the truly deserving and the scammer or cheat) - are best made.
The only practical thing to do from viewpoint of a distant, bureaucratically administered program, is to either offer largesse to anyone regardless of moral choices they have made (and continue to make) or to force everyone into a one-size-fits-all program, administered with all the intelligence and compassion of bureaucracies everywhere. Most reputable studies on government welfare programs tell us that the intended recipients actually receive only 15 cents of every dollar spent, the rest going to pay for administrators, bureaucrats, consultants, outside contractors (who typically happen to be large campaign contributors, etc.) To make matters worse, the tax burden imposed on those who earn their income is such that they are far less able to donate their money to the private charities who actually do the most to help those in need. Welfare, in any form - whether to the poor or to the rich, is unconstitutional and should be abolished completely. The bureaucrats could then go and look for an honest job.
Comment by Carolus — 09.04.04 @ 2:42 am
Maybe what I saw was an early draft? The title makes more sense given the later paragraphs than what I linked to earlier.
Don’t get me wrong, I commented last night that I expected a lot of good conservative people to be disappointed with the laundry list. I think though that we’ll find that it’s a head them off at the pass laundry list that makes it hard for them to get around.
Comment by Pat Curley — 09.04.04 @ 3:41 am
I don’t have a problem asking women to put their babies in daycare and get a job because, married though I was and am, that’s what I had to do. I love my husband but he has never made enough money by himself to support a family. My child loved her daycare and I believe she benefitted from it.
I think single moms who develop the sense of confidence and maturity that you get when you work and get a paycheck and support yourself, are better mothers and better role models than women who have allowed themselves to be convinced that they just don’t have what it takes to be a full-fledged human like the rest of us who work and pay our taxes.
Comment by Laura — 09.04.04 @ 9:09 am
LaShawn, first time visitor, I’ll be back often, great post!
Carolus hit the nail squarely on the head. Let private charities take care of the truly needy. They are much more effective at weeding out the abusers, and Far more effective with the money.
Comment by Justin — 09.04.04 @ 1:14 pm
President Bush is not King Bush. He is part of a much larger picture. He has a very competent staff with experience. It is to his credit that they have come together in this difficult time. I do wish we weren’t kept in the dark so much about what is happening on the terror front however. That said, I had to walk away from the speech after hearing it for about 15 minutes. He took all of the problems that the government has given us and in effect said this is the new way, live with it. Every single program that he proposed puts more government in place if only in an overseeing capacity. It was Big Brother government, Democrat style. The welfare system grew rapidly when the moral standards of this country broke down. There was a time when having a baby outside of marriage was a shame. Community standards kept young women out of bed. Now serial sex partners is an accepted way of life. The media is sex saturated. Yelpers who say keep the government out of my bedroom are continuously spending time in many other bedrooms via television and the films. More educational opportunities? There aren’t jobs for all of the college graduates we have now. The idea seems to be if we educate a lot of people they will invent something that brings jobs. More insurance? Sounds good but what I suspect will happen is that minimal care will be available for everyone and the money will be eaten up by administrative costs. Enough. In the future all the family anyone will need will be Big Brother.
Comment by zuukie — 09.04.04 @ 1:21 pm
Carolus, my paragraph regarding the Salvation Army and Red Cross was perhaps confusing. My intent was not to say that government provided aid via those charities, but using the examples of the government AND those charities that don’t require people to work for their aid. Just to clarify that I do understand the proper role of the government.
But where in the constitution did you find or interpret that the founding fathers “explicity stated that the government WAS NOT established for the purpose of providing assistance and relief to the poor and others afflicted by circumstances” as you wrote in your post?
To provide for the general welfare of our people is allowed through our constitution [Article 1, Section 8]. How is that interpreted NOT to provide or help the poor? How can a nation founded on biblical principles NOT help its needy?
Comment by Connie — 09.04.04 @ 1:43 pm
If our taking care of the needy should be left to private charities and our government NEVER used to provide help for those in need, then that should also go to help in time of natural disasters. Could our private charities really provide health care, housing, food and etc. to all or our poor in need? Could private charities ONLY be the ones called upon in natural disasters? Is it okay for governemnt to provide monies in disasters but not for their poor? (Can Florida right now depend only on the charities and not get government help?)
Just looking for consistency in our expectations of our government spending for help.
Comment by Connie — 09.04.04 @ 1:55 pm
Laura your statements go back to the idea that a mother must work and support herself to feel good about herself. That’s where a lot of disrespect toward the moms on welfare comes from. Financial dependence on others does not always translate into lack of respect, otherwise the homemaker who depends on the financial resources of her husband would also be disrespected (which in many cases she is).
I know of many women on welfare who were basically homemakers and to flee their abusive mates turned to government help to continue their “work” of tending to their children. Now all of a sudden they are to be ashamed and less confident although doing the same work that they were respected in doing? The only shame here is that they are receiving money from taxpayers who don’t appreciate the work that these mothers are doing.
But no worry here. Our government doesn’t appreciate their work either because these mothers have to now get a job and have others paid for doing the work they were doing. Now taxpayers are not only paying for welfare, but for childcare and their training. Ok.
But all in all because of the lack of morality that many of those mothers portray and the welfare abuse that occurs, I do see the failure of our government in providing this aid. My only joy in seeing our governments involvement is in the number of women whose lives are better because of this help.
Comment by Connie — 09.04.04 @ 2:15 pm
Connie, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers regarding the interpretation of the “general welfare” clause. James Madison, for starters, angrily denounced the idea that “general welfare” was to mean pulic assitance.
Oh, and you might wish to take note that there were no Fedreal welfare or entitlement programs of any kind until the advent of the socialist-leaning administration of FDR in the 1930s. Government - usually through the state militia - did provide emergency aid to areas devastated by natural disaster, along with private organizations like the Salvation Army and Red Cross, before our present era of socialism. There wasn’t even an income tax until 1913.
Comment by Carolus — 09.04.04 @ 2:18 pm
I don’t think it’s the taxpayers’ job to support women who want to be at home with their children. For those who want to, and who have arranged their lives so that they can, i.e., married someone who can support them or are independently wealthy, good for them. Otherwise the conservative in me says that people should stand on their own two feet and support their own families if they are humanly able. Daycare is not the worst thing in the world.
Comment by Laura — 09.04.04 @ 4:56 pm
‘Oh, and you might wish to take note that there were no Federal welfare or entitlement programs of any kind until the advent of the socialist-leaning administration of FDR in the 1930s. Government ‘
FDR never quite drifted into socialism. He did what he did to preserve the US, and preserve the Capitalist system now still in place. Extremely limited government inteference, that practised by Hoover simply would not have made things better in the US.
Comment by Omar — 09.04.04 @ 8:03 pm
Omar, The “capitalist” system that Roosevelt “preserved” is actually a mercantilist/big-government system that is hardly worth preserving. And every leader since has either shored up that system or has done nothing to retard its growth (but, God bless him, Reagan tried).
Connie, perhaps you would be interested on Star Parker’s thought’s on the subject (I do not have the web address handy). She illustrates how the welfare system has actually wreaked havoc on the black family for decades.
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.04.04 @ 11:29 pm
And sorry, Jerry, but I did not enjoy Bush’s speech, save for a couple of hits. It is the only part of the convention I watched (I’ll wait for the rest of it to come out on a Mystery Science Theater version).
It was not Reaganesque, as the RNC would have us believe; the word I would dare use would be Humphrey-esque.
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.04.04 @ 11:33 pm
‘Omar, The “capitalist” system that Roosevelt “preserved” is actually a mercantilist/big-government system that is hardly worth preserving. And every leader since has either shored up that system or has done nothing to retard its growth (but, God bless him, Reagan tried).’
Roosevelt did what he had to do to preserve the States. The United States, under the noses of 20’s laissez faire Capitalists was becoming a consumer society, with wide reaching global connections. The non intervention of Government in the economy lead to the stock market crash. Say about Roosevelt what you like, but he kept the US going, and going strong. Another Hoover type figure would not have accomplished this.
Comment by Omar — 09.05.04 @ 1:04 pm
“Jerry, you’re the male version of me. Even if you happen to hold a different view on a particular issue someday, you’d still be the male-me”
A wonderful compliment Miss Barber! Thank you.
And thank you Carolus as well.
Connie, if I were to address all of the logical fallicies in your posts I would be here all day. This could turn out to be as long a thread as the immigration topic Miss Barber.
I will say this though, the heart of the matter when it comes to welfare is this, as men and women of God we are admonished by scripture to take care of each other and those who are poor, weak and destitute among us. No where does it state that the government or our rulers are responsible for such a thing.
No one here is saying that people in need should not be helped.
Also, you cannot apply Christian principles to a government entity that, for all intents and purposes, is not a Christian organization.
And finally, and I believe someone alluded to this point already, since government continues to intervene where it doesn’t belong, i.e. charity, by taking, forcibly, from the “haves” and giving it to the “have nots”, then the “haves” will continually be less inclined to excercise charity themselves towards the “have nots”, especially when that money is spent to support their moral failings.
That is the moral failing of the government.
p.s. the book from which I quoted Mr. Elder is called
“10 Things You Can’t Say In America”.
Very good book.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 09.05.04 @ 1:43 pm
Well, Omar, I think we have come to the end of any meaning ful discussion. Anything either of us could do now would be a sort of “No, He didn’t” “Yes, he did!”.
You may take comfort in the fact that academia, prevailing economic thought, and both political parties think and operate according to the principle you described.
The system is the Keyesian/managerial planned economy through gov’t regulation, the tax code, etc. If you prefer this kind of system, great. I do not.
The pre New Deal economy wasn’t perfect (it was largely the creation of post-Lincoln mercantilists) but then we went one step worse with the welfare-warfare state.
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.05.04 @ 2:22 pm
‘The system is the Keyesian/managerial planned economy through gov’t regulation, the tax code, etc. If you prefer this kind of system, great. I do not.’
Ah yes. Fair enough then.
‘The pre New Deal economy wasn’t perfect (it was largely the creation of post-Lincoln mercantilists) but then we went one step worse with the welfare-warfare state.’
Worse than the Depression caused by this economy?
Comment by Omar — 09.05.04 @ 4:17 pm
The primary debate on welfare has revolved around how much government ought to give - whether it be welfare for single mothers, or relief from hurricane damage. What I’d ask for you all to recognize is that we must decide between either public welfare or private welfare. I’d hope that you’d all recognize that private welfare is the better choice.
Those of you that believe that the government ought to provide welfare (or relief), you’d do well to read some stuff by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. Friedman argues that public involvement in a sector of the economy crowds out private involvement. In other words, as the bureacratic mess of government welfare increases, the streamlined and caring efforts of private charity decreases. To try and make it simple, this is due to the fact that people have less in their pockets to go out and invest in the industry (and yes, charity is an industry), and also because an industry can naturally only support so many businesses. So, here is the real question: if you could choose between the Salvation Army, which gets 80% of funds coming in to the needy, vs. government welfare, which gets 20% of funds to the needy, which should you choose? If you further couple Friedman’s argument about crowding out with the fundamental efficiency of private enterprise, you find that the needy would be better off under a system of completely private charity.
As for the liberals invoking Keynes on this board, you would do well to understand what Keynes advocated vs. why Friedman says Keynes is dreadfully wrong.
Keynes is invoked to defend the socialist policies of FDR which were supposedly necessary to stop the “failure” of hands-off capitalism. This claim is so ridiculously ignorant to the causes of the Great Depression and of the “benefits” of Keynesian Economics.
First and foremost, the Great Depression occurred both from protectionist trade policies and mistakes made by the Federal Reserve in monetary policy. Friedman has more on this if you’re interested.
As far as Keynes goes, he advocates government spending as a means of stimulating the economy, but this is just silly. While it is true that spending would help the economy as it exists after taxation, if you compare the economy as it is before taxes to how it is after Keynesian spending, you find that the economy is actually made worse off, because all that happens is a transfer of money into a bureacracy which gobbles up a bunch of it up, and then transfers the remainder back to the private sector. Furthermore, if you read Friedman’s study on the matter, you’ll fidn that the Keynesian government spending hypothesis is empirically denied.
You want to help the needy? Leave it up to private charity.
Comment by Andrew P. Connors — 09.05.04 @ 9:37 pm
Here comes my two cents. On staying home with children, I know many many professional moms (including myself) - doctors, lawyers, and CPAs, among others - who chose to take serious paycuts to stay home. I earned over twice as much as my husband and elected to stay home. The key is money management and commitment to your kids. No, we do not stay at home and eat bon-bons. We’re the PTA members, the classroom helpers, the tutors and storytime moms, and we do not have a lesser image of self from not earning a paycheck. My daughter’s pediatrician elected to leave practice and stay home because in her opinion it was the best for her children. This is a sociological movement that is happening in enormous numbers. Based on the very well-educated opinions of those moms I mentioned, we are able to pay closer attention to our children’s needs at a time when they are most vulnerable. Yes, I understand some moms don’t pay closer attention and use the time for self-gratification, but to be honest, I’ve seen more attitudes towards self in the working moms than the SAHMs (i.e., I need to work to feel good about myself, I need to afford my new car, my husband wants season tickets to the ballpark - all things I’ve heard).
Okay, demographically you could say I’m only talking about the very wealthy who can obviously afford to stay home. But I know many who struggle to afford it while fending off hurtful comments from their former co-workers, and I can appreciate the criticism welfare moms must face from the same pro-working-mom crowd. I’ve come in contact with welfare moms through our school system and found the ones I’ve met to be very curious about other SAHMs and basically uneducated in how to meet their children’s needs. It’s because of having been the recipient of this criticism, however, that I start to get suspicious of the source. Before I get going on the NOW crowd, though, I’ll just assume you all know where this is going.
If welfare moms want to stay home with their children, I support this to a point. I really can’t see women having more children to add to our overburdened welfare rolls. Like the poster above said, number 4 is not an oops. This, to me, is a cultural & moral problem, not an economic one. It wasn’t that long ago that families stayed together and supported each other, and fostered the conservative ideals that are dismissed as prude and naive by the free-love crowd. But the fact of the matter is that THEY WORK. I, like you LaShawn, struggle with this issue. And I pray that our country returns to more self-supportive, family-centered conservative values which will empower the welfare recipients far more than just more money or more time on the welfare roles.
Comment by Jeannie — 09.05.04 @ 10:04 pm
‘So, here is the real question: if you could choose between the Salvation Army, which gets 80% of funds coming in to the needy, vs. government welfare, which gets 20% of funds to the needy, ‘
This extremely crude. The salvation army and such groups arnt GUARANTEED to help anyone. Not to mention their funding is extremely limited, and their spheres of influence are restricted.
‘Keynes is invoked to defend the socialist policies of FDR which were supposedly necessary to stop the “failure” of hands-off capitalism. This claim is so ridiculously ignorant to the causes of the Great Depression and of the “benefits” of Keynesian Economics. ‘
Firstly, what do you consider to be the causes of the Great Depression?
Can you point out how it is ignorant? ‘Hands off’ Capitalists were responsible for the Great Depression. Its THAT simple. People unwilling to do anything but liquidate, people like Hoover and Mellon made the situation even worse. The American economy pre FDR was an unregulated juggernaut just waiting to implode. Independent banks that werent required to join the federal reserve board were lending out huge sums of money so people could ‘buy on the margin.’ American stocks were ridiculously, and unrealistically high….and the Government did nothing to stop this. Low interest rates didnt help either. Holding Companies in the US proceeded to destroy the economy when the great crash hit. Contrary to some belief, the Great crash didnt cause the depression. The depression was caused by deep flaws in the US economic system, and triggered by the great crash. These flaws were laissez faire Capitalism.
‘Furthermore, if you read Friedman’s study on the matter, you’ll fidn that the Keynesian government spending hypothesis is empirically denied.’
How is this the case? You made a lot of controversial statements without explaining how they were the case. Keynesian theories on Government spending pulled the US out of the depression. His theories of taxation instead of deficit spending also managed to stop inflation spiralling out of control.
Comment by Omar — 09.06.04 @ 7:54 am
Excellent post Jeannie! But to clarify a point you made which is a common myth regarding welfare, the thought that most welfare recipients have large families. 80% of welfare moms have only 1 or 2 children. And this stat was BEFORE welfare reform! I’m not really keen of the politics of why government sponsored welfare even exists, but the fact is it does and women are seeking help — that is the bottom line. Who can provide this help and right now, it is our government and the women are being disrespected for doing so.
So many myths have been created about welfare but the most disturbing to me is that welfare mothers are lazy and need to get a job! Or, to feel good about themselves, they must become self-sufficient (as if having ANY job equals instant self-sufficiency!). If more and more us conservative women were to speak up and defend the poor SAHM (stay-at-home-moms) then at least respectability could also mold welfare reform. Respect of the WORK a mother must do in order to raise her child.
(La Shawn, you are right. This is a topic that could use its own blog!)
Comment by Connie — 09.06.04 @ 9:21 am
Mark, thanks for recommending Star Parker’s website (www.urbancure.org). I had even purchased her book a while ago, “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” but after reading it, I found myself to be more in disagreement with Star that agreement.
In her book, Star refers to all who receive welfare as the “lazy poor.” On page 20 of her book she says the following: “The lazy poor is the one poverty group for which a central government must facilitate welfare services through guilt and manipulation of the rest of the populace.”
She goes on to say how this group always wants more and how they love pleasure, wine and oil. Wow! What a horrible way of categorizing a group of people! It is her one-sided generalization of the welfare recipient that has caused me to lose confidence in any solution that she proposes to help this group.
She also blames welfare for the moral decay of the families that are on it. As I stated in an earlier post, if one is morally corrupt BEFORE they get on welfare, then that usually dictates how they will use it. She also believes in the myth of welfare creating a continuous cycle of dependency. Contrary to the statistics (1995) that show more that 70% of those receiving welfare stayed on for less than two years while only 8% stayed on for more than eight years!
I blame Star Parker’s influence as a reason that many continue to attack the poor single-mother who turns to the government for help. She does nothing more than perpetuate the common myths of welfare including the belief that a mother on welfare is not “working.”
I do agree with her and others on this blog that everyone’s best interest perhaps would be better served if the private charities (especially Christ-centered) would completely take over helping the welfare recipient. Star even suggested on her website vouchers for recipients to choose the agency of their choice. My only hope is if that ever became the case, that these agencies recognize the “work” that one must do in caring for their children — at home!
Comment by Connie — 09.06.04 @ 12:00 pm
I blame Star Parker’s influence as a reason that many continue to attack the poor single-mother who turns to the government for help. She does nothing more than perpetuate the common myths of welfare including the belief that a mother on welfare is not “working.”
I have to disagree with your assessment of Star Parker, Connie. As one who was a “welfare queen” and knows others, she is more than qualified to not only speak out against government dependency but wield her influence to highlight that climbing out of the hole of dependency is possible.
If some want to use her as an excuse to perpetuate whatever myths they have about dependency, that’s on them and not Star.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.06.04 @ 12:07 pm
La Shawn, in spite of what I think of Star Parker and her views on welfare, I’m actually of fan of hers (ever since seeing her debate folks on shows such as the now defunct “Politically Incorrect.”) The sister is sharp as can be and I’d never want to get into a verbal debate with her because I know I’d lose every time!
Please don’t let your admiration of her get in the way of how she views welfare. It is apparent to me and I hope to others that her views of welfare are based primarily upon her own experiences. Not all women have used welfare as she has used it. Not all are lazy and seek only wine, pleasure and oil. She is not qualified to speak on welfare just because she experienced it. If she is to speak up about it, then she must keep in mind the facts and not her own experiences only. That’s true qualifications!
Star is a one-of-a-kind personality, a personality that even shone through her misuse of welfare. To get off of welfare, become a success and then to turn around and put down others who are on it isn’t a way of helping those succeed. I wonder how many recipients are saying “thank you Star for calling me lazy and help me get off welfare!”
I wouldn’t.
Comment by Connie — 09.06.04 @ 12:35 pm
Connie, thank you. I was worried that I was too redundant and long-winded, mainly due to the long winds of Hurricane Frances beating at my windows while I typed (and hurried to get off so I could shut down!).
I didn’t mean to imply that most welfare recipients have large families; I’m aware this is a myth, as it also is a common myth that most welfare recipients are black. But I’m glad you summed up one of the points I tried to make, that as staying home becomes more popular, we have more of an opportunity to act as role models for welfare recipients and, as you stated, spokespeople. The bottom line, to me, is always the most vulnerable - the children.
Comment by Jeannie — 09.06.04 @ 12:36 pm
Star speaks against welfare not just based on her own experiences. Her organization does public policy research. It’s funny that you obviously read my blog and are familiar with my strong opinions, yet assume my admiration for Star influences me to ignore what may be flaws in her arguments. To the contrary. I also admire Bush, but I criticize him. In that admiration, I see clearly that his anmesty-for-aliens plan, for example, stinks.
I don’t know if you’re a Christian, but Star also speaks about the immorality of government dependency and its attendant consequences. She sees dependency as enslavement ruining people’s lives, and she’s passionate about that. The collapse of the family has been devastating to the black community, and if she has to make some noise to get people’s attention about it, so be it. Welfare is one more pathology - whether people are abusing it or not - that we don’t need. She describes blacks’ relationship with the government as a “love affair.”
I thinksuch dire circumstances call for extreme measures. If her methods and positions offend women on welfare, I think the shock will do them good. It’s being dependent on governemnt in the first place that’s “bad”, not whether the recipients are lazy.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.06.04 @ 12:57 pm
Welfare is a pathology…
Welfare ruins lives…
Welfare is one more pathology…
being dependent upon the government is bad…
Wow! You’ve stated your case and I can say no more to you La Shawn. You’ve bought the lies.
I am a born again Christian whose government dependence on welfare decades ago helped me to become the successful business analyst that I am today. I stayed on welfare for five years while I raised my babies (who are in college now). None of my children are on welfare and I’m very thankful that the taxpayers helped me leave an abusive marriage. Without the government funds, me and my children would have been homeless and hungry and I perhaps would have been dead.
If the monies would have come from a private agency instead, I would have done the same thing — depended upon it’s financial resources. Staying home helped me keep my sons out of the gangs, my daughters free from getting pregnant as I closely monitored them.
This explains my passion for the welfare mothers of today. I wasn’t lazy, but had high confidence in my work as a mother and my purpose in raising my children — who ALL serve Jesus Christ today!
My story is also a story of success, but you will never hear me condemn the government nor criticize the mothers who turn to it. I was a committed Christian when I turned to government aid and used it for what it was meant to be…a help for single-moms who chose to stay home.
Welfare wasn’t perfect back then as it’s not now, but the destruction of the family took place in the heart of man, not in government money.
Comment by Connie — 09.06.04 @ 1:46 pm
I have a question. I think we all know that the kind of “welfare” we’re talking about began in the 60s and was associated with blacks. What would YOU have suggested to remedy the poverty and lack of education and employment opportunities in that community? Why was it left for the government to intervene? What were the conservatives doing during that time to address the issue? What were non-profits and churches doing at that time to aid poor blacks?
Stan in San Diego
Comment by stan — 09.06.04 @ 1:53 pm
We’re just going to have to “agree to disagree”, Connie. My position and those found on my blog are what I believe. Of course the ultimate problem is man’s nature, but government dependency contributes to the problem, like alcoholism once contributed to mine. The ultimate issue was my sin problem, not that I drank like a fish. The fact that you were on welfare doesn’t change my position. I suppose this is one of those passionate subjects where two people, even sisters in Christ, disagree.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.06.04 @ 2:04 pm
Stan what kind of welfare are you talking about? The one the media portays? The black uneducated mother with baby after baby after baby? It is that portrayal alone that has shaped people’s negative views of welfare even if the statistics show otherwise (mostly white and average number of kids at 2.7).
I don’t even know what I would suggest. I know how I combatted poverty, I finished school and waited until my small babies were much older before I tackled a job. But I know tax-payers don’t want to pay for a poor mother getting a college degree as many of them would also like to have that same opportunity.
I really don’t know. That’s probably one good reason while I’m not really into welfare activism — I just don’t have the answers. I only know what I had to do and did it.
Comment by Connie — 09.06.04 @ 2:11 pm
La Shawn, I’m with you there. I agree to disagree also. I aim to keep the peace with the family of Christ, especially.
This is a tough topic as we have said before so I’ll try to bow out of this conversation gracefully as possible!
Comment by Connie — 09.06.04 @ 2:16 pm
Maybe the reason the welfare issue is so difficult to discuss is that there are as many reasons people are on welfare as there are people on welfare. It’s very hard to criticize a definable group when their individual definitions are so diverse. And, of course, the media muddies the waters as it always does. Plus, in the backs of our minds may be the fact that there but for the grace of God go I.
Comment by Jeannie — 09.07.04 @ 1:31 am
AMEN Jeannie!
Comment by Connie — 09.07.04 @ 12:33 pm
Question:
Is taking from someone against their will who is without need, to give to someone else in need a sin? Is it wrong at all? Is it wrong to be a knowing benefactor of such “help”?
Walter Williams sums up in a July 28, 2004 Townhall.com article “Socialism is Evil”,
“For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” I’m sure He didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless there’s a majority vote. And I’m sure that if you asked God if it’s OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well. ”
I tend to agree with this assessment. Regardless of the perceived benefits of welfare, it is still wrong. Just because anyone here benefitted from it doesn’t legitimize it, if that were so then a bank robbery is a legitimate activity if the stolen proceeds are donated to the poor or since the robbers will obviously benefit financially from it themselves.
The point gets missed if we make this discussion about who benefits from welfare.
Regadless of whether or not a mother chooses to stay at home, it is wrong to use the proceeds that are “stolen” from others to assist your own personal lifestyle choices or the consequences thereof, whether they are good choices or bad ones. It is the source of the assistance that is the problem, not your choice of being a stay at home mom.
There is still a such thing as right and wrong in this world, whether we would like to acknowledge this truth or not.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 09.07.04 @ 2:34 pm
The best line in Bush’s speech:
Liberty is transformative. Sounds like Ms. Noonan is speech-writing again. Good for her. As a writer, though, I think “Liberty Transforms” is a better way to say it. Love transforms, too. Ask any committed Christian…
Comment by ceara — 09.07.04 @ 9:00 pm