We are constantly told it is unconstitutional for government to help people in
poverty. This in spite of the fact the one of the powers given to congress is
the power to tax to promote the general welfare. So much for so called
constitutional experts. Here in Utah we have a senator who claims to be one and
during the Obamacare debates got this very issue wrong. The very term
constitutional expert is intimidating. It implies one has to be highly educated
to understand the document. Not so, All one has to do to know what is in the
constitution is to read it. I know because I have done it and it ISN'T
Children who supposedly live in poverty today have 10 times as much as we did in
the 60's and we didn't consider ourselves as suffering. I guess
that's why our kids are so fat today.
In the scripted moments Romney cares about 100% of our citizens but when
he's unscripted and talking to the megafundraiser type people, he writes
off 47% of them. The children in this article are part of the 47%. As a nation,
we are stronger with them then we are without them.
GrandmaSusan,You are so right! Children today have:*
cell phones* free breakfast & lunch at school* computers*
television* abundance of government benefits* more funding in
education* etcOur poverty struck people have so much. In many
cases, the term "general welfare" has been an excuse for entitlements,
and justifying laziness.Grandpa Worf
Instereo,I know we all know the 'teach him how to fish'
concept, but apply that to your argument: If all we do is 'give to those
who take' and the takers only 'take take take' without giving
back, then we are most certainly not stronger with them(again, according to your
own argument). It is simple math. A parasite that only feeds off your body and
doesn't give back doesn't make you stronger. No amount of denial
changes that fact.I'm not saying we shouldn't give. If in
our democracy we choose as a society to enact such a system of tax dollars going
to charity then I can support that as well. I'm not arguing support for
social security, income security, and all of our other broken systems. But if we
democratically choose to feed the hungry and build up the poor in education and
living conditions then I am all for it. I believe that helping those in a
condition beneath your own is right. But we're not doing this.The problem: liberals want to continue the parasitical system and without
permission. Government taking isn't moral, people giving is.
When I was a young girl and teenager, we suffered from poverty. It was caused
because of divorce. Marriage is the best way to combat poverty in this country.
Even if you are poor, if you have parents who care, you can overcome it. I was
the first child in our family to graduate from college. Things got a lot better
when my mother remarried after my birth father just disappeared. Study after
study shows that most of the people poverty are single moms, just like my was
mother. Even though we were poor, my mother never asked for help from the
government. She taught me to work hard. I have Multiple Sclerosis and I have
never asked for help from the government. Now, I do know that many people with
my disease need federal help and I am glad to help them, but there are so many
more people on government medicare, or medicaid that it is ridiculous. You can
break the cycle, if you want to. My mother also grew up in poverty.
"Government taking isn't moral, people giving is."I
feel that it is important to elaborate on that point. What people on all sides
of the political spectrum are forgetting is that their own agenda is getting in
the way of helping people. Liberals argue to give, conservatives argue to stop,
and ultimately everyone gives in to a 'feed the children' argument in
the end because these things still get voted in. Rather than fixing the current
programs, our government only enacts new ones or throws more money at the
problem, creating more debt and never fixing anything. The parasitical and
financially bankrupt system continues.What we need is not new
spending/programs, but revised spending/programs.1) To be
functional, we need to only provide help to those who will contribute, only what
they can, to that helping system. (No less or more efficient than the LDS
welfare program)2) To remain moral, any citizen's property
rights ought to be protected, and be able to opt out of paying into a system if
they don't support it. I shouldn't be forced to support a broken
system, a functional one (like LDS welfare) I would instantly.
A voice of reason--you are right, there isn't a better run welfare program
than the LDS welfare program, along with its twin program "the perpetual
education fund," because they combined lift people out of poverty instead of
sustaining them in poverty, like our current dole-oriented government programs
do. Poverty is more than a physical condition, it is mainly a mindset that can
only be overcome through education and hard work.Thomas Jefferson wisely
said, "If we can but keep the government from wasting the labors of the
people, under the pretense of taking care of them, we will be a happy
@cjb,the general welfare at hand is building roads bridges things that all
citizens might use or enjoy! Not the redistrabution of wealth! being poor is
not hereditary! and if I wanted to be poor I want to be poor in America! were
even the porrest amongst us have cable TV and a cell phone and even if your
homeless there is at least 20 homeless shelters i know of in the salt lake area
alone and were i live at least ten. were if they want to live by the rules they
get a cot and three hot meals and job placement services.
Instereo--"We are stronger with them than we are without them." A
nation is not stronger with poverty laden people. We are stronger with an
educated, productive people. This article plainly states that poverty is
increasing under the burden of big government programs and high unemployment.
Obama has done nothing to help the working class, energy, growing the job
market, evidenced by fewer people working today than when he took office,
regardless of how many jobs were created. Even GM wants to get away from the
tentacles of big government control. Romney stated a truth, that 47% of the
people rely on government dole, many of whom are capable of working but
don't because they either can't find a job, live better on the dole,
or simply don't want to work. America will only rise out of this
poverty/government dole through better education and work, which is in many
cases a personal decision. Government would best help provide that opportunity
by getting out of the people's way.
A voice of Reason,Too many people abuse the entitlement system.
Parents with new cars picking up their children who qualified for free
lunches.Yes, there are exceptions, but many can care for themselves
without burdening the others. Many healthy people who could be working if there
was an urgency. Why make others pay for them?
"Parents with new cars picking up their children who qualified for free
lunches"Are the parents lying on their applications, or is the income
level set so high that people can afford to buy new cars, computers etc, or is
the child living in a foster home or did the family just recently/temporarily
become disadvantaged?Free lunch programs are administered
locally.Maybe worf, you can jot down the license plate numbers and turn
them into the school district so they can catch the "cheaters." I know a child who gets free lunches and they are important to her
well-being. The (single)mother has advanced multiple sclerosis. The
$1500-1600/mon they get from disability makes them ineligible for foodstamps.
However, the mother is physically unable to prepare food at home so school lunch
is the best meal she has every day. It is a very sad situation. When the budget for nutrition programs are cut, children are likely to bear
the consequences. Is it worth it?
peter,Great post and a fantastic quote! Definitely a keeper.Worf,I'm not saying that we should 'make'
anyone pay for others. If we the people democratically choose to use tax dollars
to help others, then that is our choice. The people have every right to choose
which economic system to use (as long as individual rights are protected).
Personally, I wouldn't have the government run welfare. I would rather
people volunteer to help. But if we elect a government that chooses to, then I
believe allowing an opt out is necessary to maintain peace and fair justice.I don't believe in 'burdening' anyone. I believe that
some people have burdens and others can help. Help is a good thing as long as it
is actually helping (and teaching is a necessary part of helping). My real
argument here isn't "pro social government". I'm saying that
IF you are going to have a welfare program, THEN it needs to be functional AND
protect everyone's property rights and right of choice.I
believe that help is good only on the conditions of choice (not entitlement to
others fruits) and that the help actually helps.
Truthseeker,Your analogy of the struggling mother and children is
indeed sad. However, I would suggest you consider the following:The
real moral outrage in such situations isn't that the government isn't
forcing help out of others, it's that the help wasn't offered to begin
with.Let's say an LDS Church ward has 100 people and 1 of them
is physically unable to cook. It is only right that society helps them. Now say
that society dwindles in its moral quality and chooses not to help; that the a
government taxes and forces the help out of others. 1) the lack of freedom is
immoral 2) the lack of my property rights is immoral 3) it causes unrest and
peace will not be maintained. 4) The government help fails anyway.Now take that picture, you have an immoral government forcing an immoral
people (whether the government system is functional or not). No possible good
will ever come from it. And if the peace and freedom are not maintained, such a
people will be destroyed anyway.What is needed is not more force or
more debt. We need to be better people, rich and poor.
"Poverty' is not the root cause of the suffering of some children and
their condemnation to a life with little success.As Laura Ann's
eloquently stated facts of her life point out, it is children living in single
parent homes that is the root problem.Too many children are born to
unwed mothers (yeah, that's a value judgement- the kids will suffer!) to
mothers who are too young to be responsible for the life of another human being,
even if it is their child, and the "sperm donors" too often provide zero
love or support for their offspring. These are the consequences of extremely
bad decision making by too many young people today. Society (and
especially taxpayers) have generously provided trillions of dollars already in
the "war on poverty" with almost nothing to show for it. Largess has
been accompanied by lowered expectations of standards of behavior, resulting in
further poverty and more children stuck in it.Instead of harassing
taxpayers who fail to pay, the government should be harassing parents who fail
to support their children and those who procreate without first marrying. If
you tolerate misbehavior, then you, not I should be willing to pay.
A voice of Reason,Thanks for your post. It's human nature for
people helping people. It's also our nature to resist coercion.
Do note, it's the so-called "Right to Work" states that have the
poorest education outcomes and the poorest children. Instead of vilifying the
voice of labor, people ought to realize that when you give unilateral power to
those who already have the most, they don't give back. "Money is speech," so those who have more have more access to power
and influence. Yet still Mitt Romney is not satisfied. He feels that the 47%
who pay no federal income tax, because of their poverty, are not making their
fair contribution to society. The pride cycle goes 'round.
Re:VORIt is sad that people don't do more to help. But i imagine
many people are consumed with paying their own bills, and taking care of their
own families. Actually this mother and child are receiving help from
church members and non-LDS neighbors as well. It really does take a village.
They are just 2 people and there are many others like them. Are you donating
your time every week to cook, clean, babysit or drive someone to Dr. appts or
to the grocery store? If not, then you should find someone that needs that kind
of help. It is nice Republicans have this lofty idea that people who need help
should be at the mercy of volunteer charity. Many people needing assistance are
segregated in large cities or small rural areas. Their neighbors are just like
them, struggling to get by. Are there people driving from the "burbs"
to help? No. Get real. The LDS church is a huge presence in UT.
Why doesn't UT lead the way and show how they get all needy Utahns off of
govt assistance solely through volunteer charity?
It's OK for people voluntarily redistribute their income to the poor. As a
matter of fact, it's a moral imperative. The more we have, the more we
ought to give. It's also OK for a group of people to voluntarily tax
themselves to do so, especially in a government created in manner that reflects
the will of the people, as outlined in our marvelous Constitution. I think it's rather ironic that those who complain the most about doing
their duty, as outlined in our laws (calling it forced charity), also like to
think of themselves as patriots and advocates for freedom. Poverty isn't
freedom and freedom isn't free.Come on, America, lets come
together and help those who need it. You judge the hungry children too harshly.
As usual a lot of judgemental people on here. Blaming the poor for being poor.
The Book of Mormon condems such an attitude. Read what king Benjamin said of
this in the book of Mosiah. Everyone is willing to criticize and find fault
with others. Regardless of blame no child should have to live in poverty. I am
single and make double the poverty level. And I struggle to pay my bills. I
can't conceive of trying to support a family on $22 K a year. I say
impossible. Come on people lighten up with the self righteous judgemental
attitudes. You may find yourself in dire need some day. The lord has a way of
humbling the prideful.
@ Neil T. Read the next few verses about the poor coveting the rich. It will put
it in better perspective for you.
Midwest Mom,So you’re OK with forcing people into unions if they
want to support their families? I cannot think of a more perfect example of
“unilateral power” than what lays with the union bosses in
closed-shop states.And you’re saying 47% are in poverty? Not
so, that’s just the level not paying federal income tax; plenty of
non-poor pay no federal income tax. The poor not only pay no federal income
tax, they get back more than they had withheld, so it’s a net gain for
them. To say the tax system is unfair to them is a lie; if anything, it’s
unfair to the 53%.All the BO apologists seem to overlook the fact
this has transpired on BO’s watch. He has been ineffective at allowing
the economy to improve, and we are all suffering as a result.