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…

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.

This is a tough topic as we have said before so I’ll try to bow out of this conversation gracefully as possible!

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.

Stan in San Diego

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!)