Hey Folks, We Need to Talk

Tags

"the War on Poverty", Acheivement, compassion, dependency, fdr, general-welfare-clause, government freebies, great-depression, handouts, Individual rights, Indoctrination, limitations, limitless, Personal responsibility, The "New Deal", The Other America

All the images that pass before our eyes … starving babies, homeless Veterans or single moms, so many struggling to make it … No, not in some remote third world country RIGHT HERE, in America – the wealthiest nation ever! It’s virtually impossible to wrap our heads around it. It’s overwhelming and heart wrenching. Surely, we can do better! Something more has to be done, right? No question! But what?

In response to those who hold that the”General Welfare clause” of the Constitution means taking care of the people, America, as a government,  has tried several different programs over the past few decades to help those in need to find their way to the American Dream and alleviate suffering. “The New Deal,” inspired by the Great Depression, opened the hearts and minds of Americans under FDR (D), way back in 1933–1937.But did it solve the problem of poverty in America? Short answer, no!

Neither was the “War on Poverty” initiated under President Johnson a success. More recently, the policies and programs of President Obama have done exactly the opposite of their so-called intent. They have found more people, not fewer, in the unemployment lines, applying for food stamps and other social programs.

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

It’s a funny thing about human nature that philosophers seldom seem to consider well … There are specific things that motivate humans to productivity and achievement, and certain things which subdue those inclinations. The “war on poverty was a costly, tragic mistake,” the article, “Why the War on Poverty Failed: Handouts Provide the Wrong Incentives,” begins. “Possibly the most influential policy book in history, The Other America Michael Harrington’s The Other America, published in 1962. (Harrington died in 1989.) was cited again and again by the politicians, activists, and administrators who set up welfare programs in the 1960s. In it we find the fallacies that sent reformers down dark and tangled paths into today’s social tragedies.”

The tragic error of this thinking is in the assumption poverty is strictly a lack of material goods. “While the state of neediness we call poverty does involve a lack of material resources, it also involves a mass of psychological and moral problems, including weak motivation, lack of trust in others, ignorance, irresponsibility, self-destructiveness, short-sightedness, alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, and violence.”  The article continues, “It was a perspective that led to intolerance. Since poverty was so simple to remedy—the activists reasoned—it was unethical not to act. “In a nation with a technology that could provide every citizen with a decent life,” Harrington thundered, “it is an outrage and a scandal that there should be such social misery.”⁴ For the activists, welfare programs did not involve complex relationships and intractable problems about which honest people could disagree. They were simple moral imperatives, and anyone who opposed them was seen as selfish and insensitive. (This dogmatic view has by no means disappeared from so-called liberal circles.)”

Yes, poverty is wretched wherever it appears, but the rational answer (contrary to the sentimental response) is not handouts or “freebies.” The answer is the proverbial “hand up,” instead of the “hand out!”

• Basic education and training, which sadly is no longer flourishing in our public schools, does more to cripple our children than prepare them for a productive adult life.
• Trade schools, long hidden by some pseudo-intellectual pride, hunger for eager students, but are shunned by a populace who want to start as CEO’s, rather than work their way up the ladder.
• Food banks, soup kitchens, and clothing closets are a great start to elp the hurting and many communities have such things, but more are needed, not from government, but from us … you and me.

The Biblical concept of compassion isn’t issued to the government, but to the individual. The Golden Rule (you remember, Do unto others …?) is not for governments, but people, whether people of faith or not … people helping people. Governments have no idea how to help as evidenced by 80 years of welfare programs initiated in an vain attempt to curtail poverty. The secret to overcoming poverty, in most cases, is personal responsibility, we all ought

Now, we have an avowed “democrat socialist”(whatever that is) asking for our votes so he can increase taxes on the wager-earner so he can also increase the number of programs handing out “stuff”to those now trapped in a unemployment and dependency on the government programs that were supposed to free them from poverty.

Isn’t 80 years of failure enough to make a statement to try another tact? It isn’t the rich that are the bad guys here. It is our own greed that as crippled the most successful, productive, innovative, creative, and compassionate culture it the world, and ALL of us are guilty of the same greed, both the have’s and the have not’s!

America, use your HEAD to choose our next president. Use your HEART to make a personal investment in your neighborhood and your neighbors. Vote for individual rights and personal responsibility!

Paul wrote, “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up” (Romans 15:1–2)

Excellent reading:

• Economic policies highlight partisan divide among governors
• Was the New Deal a success or failure?
• The War on Poverty After 50 Years
• Why the War on Poverty Failed
• What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?
• Allen West: Government Handouts a Form of Slavery
• Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits
• Uncovering the Bad Math (or Logic) of an Economic Analysis Embraced by Bernie Sanders

 

Advertisement

What Does the “General Welfare” Clause Mean?

Tags

general-welfare-clause, medicare, social security, universal healthcare, US Constitution

These are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Some of these are more relevant than others in the 21st century, but each has its place. There is much debate lately, particularly over the first two of these ten amendments: freedom of speech and the right for each American to bear arms, if desired.

Prefacing the Bill of Rights, though, is a “Preamble” which seems to clarify most things.

WHO? ~ We the people of the United States,

WHY? What is the PURPOSE of this document?

in order to form a more perfect union,(to improve our governing system over the Articles of Confederation)

establish justice,(devise a system of Laws that apply to ALL American citizens equally)

insure domestic tranquility,(establish and maintain internal peace between different faiths, races, cultures)

provide for the common defense,(establish, train, and maintain a military might to protect our borders and American interests)

promote the general welfare,

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

(what?)do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But …

**DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a legal expert, nor do I claim any legal authority other than Common Sense which is not really so common these days.

* ~ * ~ *

Of all of the clauses contained in the Preamble, none have come under more scrutiny lately than the “general welfare” clause. The others are pretty self-explanatory, but the meaning of “general welfare” has changed over the decades, or has it?

Clearly, when our nation was conceived, none of the Founders foresaw the availability of health insurance or food stamps. Neither would they have ever considered Social Security or Medicare. But are these programs contained within the meaning of “general welfare?”

“The power brokers in Congress and Barrack Obama are hell-bent on convincing the American public that they have the right to enact health care and energy mandates based on the General Welfare reference in the U.S.Constitution … The General Welfare reference in the U.S. Constitution was meant only to provide support for the individual States to have national defense and provide a basis for the States to be able to conduct their own affairs.”

I mean, think about it! If the Founders had intended for the government to provide food, housing, and employment for its citizens, wouldn’t that have begun at the beginning? Wouldn’t President Washington have built stockpile warehouses filled with provisions of food and building supplies to pass out to needy citizens? But they didn’t! WHY? Because they were heartless and cruel? Because they are all independently wealthy and it never occurred to them? NO! They didn’t write it that way because they didn’t intend for government to “take care of” its citizens. The provision within the Constitution simply allows for each individual citizen or family unit to do whatever is necessary, within legal means, to meet their needs.

From the beginning of time, there have been “poor” people, and chances are pretty good that we will always have a segment of our society that is “poor.” People are “poor” for a number of reasons. Some are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves. These individuals become the responsibility, first, of family. Whether the “differently-abled” person is a child, a senior, or someone in between, if there is family, these have the moral responsibility to provide or care for the individual. This is how history records it.

After the family, if and when the family needs help, there is no family, or the family is unable to carry their family member, morally the “faith community” may be contacted for assistance or the local community. We’re all familiar with the concept of the “Good Samaritan.” (Luke 10:25-37) Early in our nation, people actually LIVED this way. If a “neighbor” needed help, needed a cup of sugar, needed help birthing a baby, needed help repairing their home … it was just assumed neighbors would pitch in both time and supplies. People KNEW their neighbors, and even if they weren’t the best of friends, there was still a common bond that implied a moral responsibility to help.

Our nation faces a serious cultural, moral, & humanitarian issue that is bankrupting us. The establishment of the many social programs created under an exaggerated definition of the “general welfare” clause, may seem at first glance to serve a humanitarian need. Medicare, for example, provides tremendous assistance to Seniors who generally experience increasing health concerns with a fixed income. This seems like a good thing, especially the way it was originally designed – more like a “savings account” working adults deposit into through their career, so it is there when they can no longer work.

Unfortunately, past administrations abused their authority and SPENT the money you and I earned. So now, this adminstration’s answer is to raise taxes on Americans – ALL working Americans – to pay for government’s inability (more accurately, their unwillingness) to reign in unnecessary, and in some cases, un-Constitutional spending. Medicare and Social Security were designed to be special “savings accounts” protected by the government for OUR use. OOOOOOPPPS! And now we want government to totally run our healthcare after squandering OUR money on the port along Alaska’s coast with no land access? or the bridge to no where? or any number of idiotic research projects? Yea … or the government that has bankrupted the Post Office? Or the government that sponsors a public education system that is something like 25th in math in the world while spending more money than ever? Do we really think the government knows our needs and how to meet them BETTER then we do?

How do you suppose Ben Franklin (a scientifically minded man) would respond to Obamacare or the backing of foreign governments that seek our harm?

What this debate comes down to is the definition of “promote the general welfare.” It doesn’t say “provide.” It says to “promote.” There is a huge difference between the promotion of something and the provision of it. The CONSTITUTION clearly states the objective is to “promote the general welfare.” It is not the government’s responsibility to be our “brother’s keeper. Its OURS! The government is only called upon to promote volunteerism, to promote community, to promote free trade, to promote intrastate commerce.

Feel free to explain the administration’s justification for these grievous infringements on OUR rights. See, if we sit back and expect the government to do what we, as citizens, are morally and socially obligated to do, not only does the government overstep its boundaries and incur outrageous debt, but it also robs you and me of the blessings, the gratification, and the sense of community that binds us together as a people who cares for one another. Open the competition for health insurance so they can vie for our business. This will improve service and lower prices all the way around. It is government regulation, price fixing, and union interests that distort the free market system.

READ the Preamble again. It is WE-the-PEOPLE who define the purpose of government. WE-the-PEOPLE must choose whether

• to be free to make decisions for ourselves or
• PAY to allow others with zero motivation to really care, make our decisions for us.

It really has become an either/or situation.

Election 2012, whichever side you took, lost! This administration believes we are not intelligent enough to make our own decisions. They believe every American must pay for the abortions of those with no morals or who cannot afford another child rather than expecting American adults to take responsibility for their own behavior. They believe every women is unable to pay for her contraception, so we all must pay for it. They believe every working American must pay for universal health care for those who choose not to work. (No debate over those unable to work!)

I submit we expect far too much from our government. They can’t even come up with a workable budget, let alone manage all we have abdicated to government control. Government is supposed to facilitate not manage.

I submit, we are robbing ourselves, and more importantly, our children and theirs, of the rich rewards of self-reliance.

I submit, WE-the-PEOPLE can still rise to the occasion and make America work again while we restore her freedoms.

Does The “General Welfare Clause” Authorize The Redistribution Of Wealth? (via Samuel at Gilgal)

Tags

article-one-of-the-united-states-constitution, constitution, economy, education, federal-government-of-the-united-states, Founding Fathers, freedom, general-welfare, general-welfare-clause, government, health-care, history, james-madison, justice, national-defense, politics, secular-progressive, socialist-left, taxing-and-spending-clause, tenth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution, United States, united-states-constitution, worldview

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” Madison saw, in principle, the causes of the economic decline of our country over the past eighty years.

The “General Welfare Clause” of the Constitution has served, incorrectly, as an excuse for secular progressives to expand the number of government programs, entitlements, and regulations all in the name of the “general welfare” of the people. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this much abused section of the Constitution: The " … Read More

via Samuel at Gilgal