Posts tagged ‘Welfare’
Many Medicaid recipients in Wisconsin will now have to work to continue benefiting from the program.
President Donald Trump’s administration approved the work requirements Wednesday. The approval also allowed the state to begin charging monthly premiums of up to $8 for those who make between 50 percent and 100 percent of the federal poverty level, as well as a co-payments for using an emergency room for non-emergency services.
The new rules require childless adults under 50 to work at least 80 hours a month to maintain their coverage. If they do not fulfill these work requirements for a 48-month period, they will lose coverage, The Hill reported.
After being kicked from the program, an applicant would have to wait an additional six months to reapply.
Gov. Scott Walker celebrated the requirements, saying in a tweet “We’re removing barriers to work to help Wisconsinites transition from government dependence to true independence!”
With crucial elections less than a week away, this may have been a risky move for conservatives in the Badger State. Gov. Walker’s opponent this year is Democrat Tony Evers. Evers does not support the work requirements and is already leading in several polls. The fallout from this decision may place him even further ahead. Even if this decision costs Walker the governorship, it needed to be done.
Welfare is seen by many as one of the worst things to impact poor communities. The benefits, which still do not require any work in most states, are said to subsidize unemployment and encourage fraud.
Arkansas is another state that recently instituted a work requirement for Medicaid. The state dropped over 4,000 people from the taxpayer’s payroll after the conditions went into effect.
Need for social safety net programs is slowly disappearing, as nationwide unemployment has been steadily dwindling down ever since Trump’s historic victory in 2016. The unemployment rate recently hit a 49-year low and shows little signs of slowing. More people are now working, and with a slowdown of welfare expansion, the American economy is primed for an even higher upwards trend.
Democrats are planning to undo that hard work, and how far they get with that plan all comes down to how conservative America confronts the democratic blue wave. With a bulwark of liberal voters ready to flood the polls on election day, only a large turnout of Republicans will be able to counter it.
Like many recent stories, the future of this one depends on what happens on Nov. 6.
If Americans confirm the work of the GOP and President Trump, work requirements are likely to increase across the nation. In the case of a Democratic victory, welfare restrictions may become a thing of the past.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com | on August 31, 2017
Another bad Obama policy has been defeated by the Trump administration and it’s going to do America a world of good!
President Trump’s team has moved ahead to restore the work requirements for welfare under the program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
The Office of Family Assistance, which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services, published a memorandum to states. They were made aware of the restored work requirements, which rescinds a loophole created by the Obama-admin that allowed states to request a wavier.
That policy had been operating since 2012. Almost five years of unaccounted for free-loaders. No wonder our economy was in such a bad state.
“Re-emphasizing the work requirements in the welfare program means once again promoting gainful employment and economic independence as goals for every family,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Steven Wagner in a statement. “The waiver option offered by the Obama administration is being replaced today by an expectation that work should always be encouraged as a condition for receiving welfare.”
Republicans famously passed work requirements for welfare recipients during the Clinton administration, but the Obama administration wanted to loosen them for individual states.
According to a release from the HHS, Ohio was the only state that applied for a waiver, which was never granted by the Obama administration. The state was informed today that their request was denied.
“Our agency is committed to helping low-income families transition from welfare to work,” said Office of Family Assistance Director Clarence Carter. “We cannot achieve the goal of self-sufficiency if meaningful work participation is divorced from welfare cash assistance.”
By: C.E. Dyer on August 10, 2016
Liberals whine that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is racist.
But Breitbart reported that the editorial board of El Mañana — one of the country’s largest newspapers — wrote an article titled “Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico’s South,” calling for the country to build a wall along its southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants pouring across from Central America.
But when was the last time you heard American liberals up in arms about how Mexico treats illegal immigrants coming across its own border from the south? Apparently there’s nothing wrong with Mexico wanting to build a wall to protect its territory, but when the United States wants to do it, suddenly it’s “racist.”
This maps below are just another example of the hypocrisy of the left:
Conservative Post reported exactly how Trump can fund the wall, explained why it’s important and debunked the left’s assertions that it isn’t possible. Thanks to Mexicans who live and work in the United States, $24 billion flows into Mexico a year. If the Mexican government wants that money to continue, it will have to come up with a one-time payment of $5 to $10 billion in order to build the border wall, according to the Conservative Post.
The Mexican government officials can protest all they want, but if the money gets cut off, it’s likely they will sing a different tune.
Conservative Post mentioned three things that would help pay for the wall:
“Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules.” As Trump has repeatedly said, we need to renegotiate trade deals in America’s favor. Doing so would provide a huge source of money to put toward building the wall.
“Cancelling visas.” America is not required to take in everyone around the world and, as the article pointed out, it is a privilege to come to the United States.
The U.S. holds a great deal of power in these negotiations as Mexico uses the U.S. as a de facto welfare state and also needs visas for business and tourism purposes.
“Visa Fees.” The left regularly likes to talk about increasing taxes on Americans, but what about visa fees? Conservative Post argued that just a small increase in visa fees could pay for the wall itself.
America needs to build a wall in order to protect Americans from drug trafficking, crime and gangs. In addition, we need to start, as Trump has said, putting Americans first. Building a wall is not only doable, it is critical for the future of America.
Published on May 25, 2016
URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/05/must-see-black-man-threatens-kill-trump-takes-away-food-stamps/
It’s been easy living for welfare leeches in the past 7 years — but that is all about to change if Donald Trump becomes President — and this welfare king knows it! That’s why he’s angry… VERY angry. He is so upset that he is threatening to kill Donald Trump and to even start a war with the government.
Going by the name of “Lil’ Maine,” his disturbing rant has gone viral on Facebook, with almost 17,000 shares. Watch it for yourself below:
Authored by Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / May 15, 2016
Jill Rothrock knows the moment she hit rock bottom.
It was 2007, and Rothrock went into the pharmacy in Bucksport, Maine, to pick up a prescription for Vicodin that she had called in herself. Her two daughters were in the car, and after she had picked up the pills, Rothrock got back into a car she was renting and began to drive away.
But agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration pulled up behind her, and at that moment, one word entered Rothrock’s mind.
Rothrock, now 44, had been battling addiction for more than 20 years.
After she was arrested in 2007, Rothrock cleaned up and enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, and worked to find a full-time job.
Now, nearly a decade later, she’s transitioned off of public assistance and has a full-time job working for the state, a change she attributes in part to the 60-month time limit enacted by Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, in 2012.
“It forced me to do what I had to do to get off benefits and start making my own money again,” she told The Daily Signal.
‘It’s About Time’
Rothrock’s battle with drugs and alcohol began when she was just 12 years old, when Rothrock, who was living in New Jersey with her family, and her friends had the run of a friend’s house. The friend’s parents owned a golf course and were never home, Rothrock recalled, and even less so since they were going through a divorce.
At first, it started with liquor and then moved on to pot, she told The Daily Signal. Later, as Rothrock progressed through her high school years, her grades dropping from As to Cs and Ds, she began to get into harder drugs: cocaine and painkillers—Vicodin, specifically—after a dentist prescribed Rothrock medicine after having dental work done.
“I was trying to get out of my reality,” she said. “The painkillers helped me achieve that. I spent the next I don’t know how many years looking for painkillers, and I came up with any excuse to get them.”
Rothrock had the connections to get the drugs she needed in New Jersey. But when she was 29 years old, her dad retired from the same job he’d worked in for 33 years and decided to make Maine, their then vacation spot, a permanent residence for him and Rothrock’s mother.
At first, Rothrock stayed in New Jersey, but then decided to move to Maine herself.
There, she was forced to find new connections, and in Maine, Rothrock said, “everybody knows everybody,” so she wasn’t having much luck.
So Rothrock became creative.
She started calling in prescriptions for herself and calling them into the same pharmacy consistently.
Eventually, the pharmacy took notice, and that’s when the DEA went calling.
“It’s about time,” Rothrock remembered thinking.
A Security Blanket
Rothrock faced three felony charges after getting arrested. She was able to attend drug court, which provides community-based treatment service to people with substance abuse, and graduated, dropping her charges from felonies to misdemeanors.
While using, Rothrock managed to hold down a steady job at AT&T, which she continued after moving to Maine in 2001.
But after her first daughter was born—and before being arrested in 2007—Rothrock quit her job. The next three years, from 2004 to 2007, she said were the worst of her life.
The day Rothrock was arrested was the first day of her sobriety, she said, and September marks nine years since she’s touched drugs or alcohol. But by 2007, Rothrock had two daughters and no steady full-time employment, so she began receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
TANF is a program that provides financial assistance to needy families and trains them for employment. To receive benefits, recipients must work, volunteer, attend school or vocational training, or actively be looking for a job.
Rothrock, newly clean and sober for the first time since she was a teenager, complied with the rules of the program and received TANF consistently for more than four years, working part-time for spans of time and receiving unemployment for others.
But in 2011, the newly elected LePage and his administration reinstated a 60-month lifetime limit on TANF eligibility, and Rothrock was quickly approaching the end of her five years.
“When you’re on TANF and you’re getting that money, it becomes your security blanket,” Rothrock said. “It seems like a heck of a lot more money than it really is because that’s the only money you’re getting. To go off of it was, it was really scary.”
“It came down to the wire,” she continued. “I knew my TANF was closing, and I had to secure a job or I would have no income.”
Welfare Reform Gets Personal
For LePage, reforming the state’s welfare system was personal.
One of 18 children, LePage grew up in poverty in Lewiston, Maine. He was homeless during parts of his teenage years, and according to the Portland Press Herald, LePage ran away from home when he was just 11 years old.
When he was young, LePage worked odd jobs when he wasn’t at school, delivering groceries and gathering empty glass bottles for the driver of a Pepsi-Cola truck he met.
So when he ran for governor in 2010, LePage made welfare reform a centerpiece of his platform.
“I was born into this,” he told The Daily Signal. “I understand it. I come from a family of 18 kids. I watched it my whole life. A few of us got up, and a few of preferred to wait for the check. We’ve been in a war against poverty since 1954, and it’s failed miserably.”
In the 2011 budget released his first year in office, LePage reinstated a five-year lifetime cap on eligibility for the TANF program, which serves needy families, but allows recipients to qualify for exemptions from a list of eight.
“If you don’t have a time limit, all the education in the world isn’t going to be very good. You give them a time limit and then you encourage them and inspire them to seek the education,” LePage said of his change to the TANF program. “My feeling was, you’ve got five years. We’re going to work with you starting today, and in five years, you won’t need the assistance because you’re going to be self-sufficient. And that’s the whole purpose.”
The government created the TANF program through the Personal Responsibility and Opportunity Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. The law originally imposed a 60-month lifetime limit on eligibility, but some states like Maine had waived it for years.
Since LePage and the state legislature reinstated the time limit, which took effect in 2012, the number of cases in the state declined 62 percent from 2011 to 2016, according to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
According to a 2014 study from the University of Maine, 36 percent of TANF households received exemptions.
“Front and center to the governor’s reforms has been promoting employment, that a job is not a dirty word. A job is what contributes to self esteem, to self worth, to human dignity, and to really change someone’s life, we need to get them on that pathway to prosperity and out of poverty through a job,” Mary Mayhew, commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services, told The Daily Signal in an interview last month.
“I think for any of us, we can appreciate if there is no time limit, if there is no goal, if there is no consequence, we’re not going to do what needs to be done,” she continued.
After reinstating a time limit for the TANF, LePage and his administration moved to restoring a work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents through the food stamp program.
The 1996 welfare reform law required childless adults between the ages of 18 and 49 to either work at least 20 hours per week, volunteer one hour per day or participate in a vocational training program to receive food stamp benefits.
But states could request waivers from the work requirement if it had high unemployment or job shortages.
Maine waived work requirements since 2008. But in July 2014, LePage and Mayhew’s Department of Health and Human Services decided it would no longer do so.
“I think it’s important for everyone to keep in mind if you are on these programs, it means you are living in poverty,” Mayhew said. “We should absolutely refuse to accept that that is the way of life that should be accepted for these individuals, that we actually believe in their potential. So we began to look at some of the policies, or worse, the waivers that Maine had pursued.”
In Maine, nearly 12,000 food stamp recipients were considered able-bodied adults without dependents under federal law, according to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, and received roughly $15 million in food stamp benefits each year.
After implementing the work requirements for childless adults, the number of food stamp recipients dropped from 13,332 in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015, an 80 percent decline. By September 2015, the number of childless adults on food stamps dropped further to 1,886.
Additionally, the state reported that incomes for able-bodied adults without dependents who left the food stamp program increased 114 percent.
“The goal is not going to eliminate everyone on welfare. Not everyone on welfare is going to be eliminated. You have people with intellectual disabilities. You have people with physical disabilities, and we all grow old. Many of those folks are going to continue, we have services that they’re going to need, and we need to have a good safety net and make sure we take care of those folks,” LePage said.
“The issue is those that are able-bodied that have no mental or physical disabilities,” he continued. “We want to try to give them the skill set they need to keep a good job and advance themselves and their families, and to achieve the American dream.”
A Contentious Debate
Tackling welfare reform has not been easy for LePage and Mayhew, who have both been criticized for hurting rather than helping those in poverty after implementing a time limit for TANF eligibility and work requirements for childless adults.
While the state Department of Health and Human Services has pointed to the drop in caseloads in both TANF and the food stamp program as measures of success, Maine Equal Justice Partners, a nonprofit that focuses on poverty, disagrees.
“A drop in the caseload is no measure, especially when you don’t know what’s happened to those folks,” Chris Hastedt, the group’s public policy director, told The Daily Signal. “We see many people who leave TANF who are not equipped and able to support their families. That has to do not just with education, but also with various levels of disability that make it more difficult for them to become employed and stay employed.”
Maine Equal Justice Partners, with the University of Maine, conducted a study on what happened to 13 families who left TANF after 60 months following LePage’s reforms.
According to the study, 31 percent of the 13 interviewed were employed or had a member of their household who was employed after losing their TANF benefits, an increase of 7 percentage points.
But more than half of the families surveyed didn’t include an employed adult.
“It doesn’t stop when people leave TANF. We often see people even within the five-year window coming back and forth because the kinds of employment we’re creating in this country these days isn’t the most sustainable. It’s part-time,” Hastedt said. “The irregularity of hours for single parents to try to balance when you don’t know until you get in that day whether you’re working or not—that’s hard stuff for people to rely on to stabilize themselves and their families.”
Additionally, nearly one-third of the families in the study lost their houses after their TANF eligibility ended.
“People need a benefit level that will enable them not to live in stress and depression and fear and just what it feels like every day to wake up living at that level of poverty, which makes it very difficult to move forward,” Hastedt said. “I think it’s stabilizing families. The whole program needs to be more individualized.”
If there is one point that both Hastedt and LePage agree on, though, it’s the role that education plays in lifting people out of poverty.
“There’s not a one-size-fits-all for everyone, but I think we all know that education is an equalizer and an important asset in people’s lives,” Hastedt said.
Meanwhile, LePage himself says that his life began when he arrived at Husson College in Bangor, but contends that limits still need to be implemented and enforced.
“Go roll up your sleeves and go find out what poverty is all about,” he said. “Once you understand what it’s all about, the answer comes to you very quickly. It’s all about education. You don’t have to be around it for 50 years to realize that once people learn skills, they never lose them. They are theirs to keep. It’s the old saying, you can buy somebody lunch or you can take them out and teach them to fish.”
Knowing she was nearing the end of her eligibility for the TANF program, Rothrock began working with state workers through Maine’s TANF-ASPIRE, or Additional Support for People in Retraining and Employment, program.
All TANF recipients are required to go through the ASPIRE program, which provides assistance with job searches, training, and education to those on welfare.
Through the ASPIRE program, Rothrock began working 30 hours per week at a nonprofit.
“I got in there, and that’s when everything started to come back,” she said, “my work ethic and how much I loved working.”
She was also paired with a mentor who, along with ASPIRE employees, encouraged her to apply for a job with the state Department of Health and Human Services.
Rothrock did, and was hired in 2012 as a clerk in the department that oversees eligibility of those in TANF.
At first, she would support the state’s eligibility specialists, answering phones, pulling files, and opening and sending mail.
But in the years since, she received raises and a promotion. In 2014, Rothrock was promoted in the eligibility department and now works on discrepancy reports the state receives from the Department of Labor and Social Security Administration.
“Once the money starts coming in, it’s the best feeling in the world,” Rothrock said. “My confidence started to come back.”
Though Rothrock was no longer eligible for TANF, the state continued to provide her with transitional benefits, including childcare and supplemental food stamps. The state also reimburses those who leave TANF for mileage to and from their job.
Rothrock admits that she was scared to “go back into the real work” and eventually go off public assistance all together. But she also observed what she said is a “generational” cycle of poverty for those on TANF.
“Nothing feels as good as earning your own money, and it’s scary to not have that safety net there,” she said. “I see these girls whose mothers are on TANF. It’s handed down. It’s a way of life. You turn 18. You get pregnant. You come to [the Department of Health and Human Services] and get on benefits.”
In April 2015, LePage and state Senate President Mike Thibodeau, a Republican, unveiled a bill further reforming TANF. Rothrock was on hand during a press conference detailing the legislation and spoke about her transition from public assistance to independence.
Though LePage has faced resistance from Democrats in his state for his reforms, he’s continued to move forward and is now shifting his focus from TANF to further reforming the food stamp program.
“I’ve been the luckiest man on earth. I went from homelessness to governor of the state of Maine, and it’s my turn to give back, and it’s my way of trying to teach people how I did it,” LePage said. “For those who say it’s going to create poverty and hardship, let me tell you something. You don’t want to be poor. If you’re poor and you have the skills to get out, you will get out.”
IF YOU CAN’T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER………..
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE. Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr. old female who gets it. It’s her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX *PUT ME IN CHARGE” . . ..
Put me in charge of food stamps – no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.”
“Put me in charge of Medicaid. Then, we will test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22-inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the common good. Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. *If you want our money, accept our rules.
Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self-esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job! Now – PASS IT ON.
March 18, 2016
Every developed nation on Earth, at least so called Western Nations, has something in common and that something is what to do about the poor. Countries wrestle with the social and economic impact – we/they struggle with the ever-increasing cost of caring for our/their poor. Those on the left insist it is our duty as a grand collective to redistribute the wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Those on the right agree that some care should be provided to the working poor, the homeless and truly indigent. This debate has been raging for multiple decades with no end in sight – the left advocating for ever more entitlements and the right insisting on some accountability.
Instead of just endlessly debating the issue the Island nation of New Zealand years ago decided to try something new. In 2013 they overhauled their welfare system to make those who receive payments somewhat more accountable. Some of the changes included discouraging families on welfare from having more children, requiring recipients to reapply for benefits at set intervals, cutting benefits if certain obligations are not met and guiding recipients into work. They also instituted a penalty for abusers of the system where a spouse must repay any benefit his or her spouse received under false pretenses. Try that in America.
Although the system has helped, the government of New Zealand is still not satisfied. So, it’s on to something new and even more radical. They call it a “Universal Basic Income” (UBI) and it “involves a basic, unconditional, fixed payment made to every person in the country by the state in lieu of benefits.”
In other words, instead of poor citizens receiving a rash of benefits from various authorities, they would instead receive, in effect, a welfare salary. They would scrap the entire welfare system and replace it with this UBI.
New Zealand’s opposition leader, Andrew Little justified the “salary” saying: “The question is whether you have an income support system that means every time you stop work you have to go through the palaver of stand-down periods, more bureaucracy, more form filling at the same time as you’re trying to get into your next job.”
Being that welfare is basically here to stay, this actually doesn’t sound half bad. I’m not keen on the idea of paying someone a salary not to work, but is that not what we are essentially doing now? Yet with a system like this, think of all the government bureaucracy that could be cut. Think of all the hundreds of departments that could be closed by simply making direct payments to recipients, not to mention the waste, fraud and abuse that would vanish by doing away with layer upon layer of said bureaucracy.
Many might say, wow – considering our sad reality, this does sound better. Why has no one suggested this before? Actually, both Finland and the Netherlands are due to launch similar programs sometime this year.
But this has been suggested before, right here in the good old U.S. of A., 47 years ago, by President Richard Nixon. In 1969, Nixon made a speech suggesting the scrapping and replacement of the “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” (AFDC – 1935-1996).
Nixon said his proposal would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother. What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.”
It was coined it as a “Guaranteed Annual Income,” (GAI) and it was the centerpiece of Nixon’s proposed “Family Assistance Plan” (FAP). Yet Nixon bristled over the term GAI and stated that “a guaranteed income establishes a right [income] without any responsibilities [work] …There is no reason why one person should be taxed so another can choose to live idly.” Conservatives in his party disagreed by stating that is exactly what Nixon’s proposal set up. The proposal did pass the House by a comfortable margin of 243-155, but the Senate killed it.
Of course the welfare system then wasn’t anything like the hammock we have today, so all things considered, maybe the New Zealand direct payment model would be preferable to our hopelessly broken, purposely complex and corrupt system.
Posted by Jeffrey Meyer Oct 6, 2015 | Washington, DC
URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/10/06/ben-carson-takes-joy-behar-to-task-on-abortion-we-are-killing-babies-all-over-the-place
During a Tuesday appearance on ABC’s The View, liberal co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg repeatedly lectured Dr. Ben Carson on his pro-life views with Behar telling the GOP presidential candidate the GOP should be “applauding Planned Parenthood.”
Behar asked Carson “how important is birth control then to the Republican Party?” before she attempted to attack the GOPer by falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood provides “mammograms.” The View host then obnoxiously wondered “[a]re you against birth control too?”
For his part, Carson pushed back and explained that he was not against birth control but Behar continued to berate him over his pro-life views. Behar proclaimed “[a]nd so I guess you believe in day care centers, and maternity leave, and food stamps, and all of the things that go along with raising a kid if you don’t have the money.”
The retired neurosurgeon rejected Behar’s line of questioning and noted that he wanted to help lift people up out of poverty rather than live in a state of government “dependency”:
“Here’s what I believe in. Because I get sick and tired of people, particularly Progressives saying Carson grew up poor. He must have benefited from government programs. And now he wants to withdraw programs from poor people…It’s a bunch of crap. And what I really actually want to do is provide people with a mechanism for coming out of a state of dependency and climbing the ladder and becoming part of the fabric of America.”
Earlier in the segment, Whoopi Goldberg tried to challenge Carson on his view that there is a war on babies because “we are killing babies all over the place”:
“Have you met with the women who have to make these more horrendous decisions when they have to make them, of whether or not they can bring a child into the world? We talk about bringing children into the world all of the time but periodically, some women feel I just can’t. And are you empathetic to them?”
Once again, Carson pushed back against the liberal host and explained “this is a job for us in the private sector. What we need to do is make sure that we provide adequate day care centers for these mothers, so that they can get their GED, their associate’s degree, their bachelor’s degree, their master’s degree.”
See relevant transcript below.
ABC’s The View
October 6, 2015
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: One of the other quotes that we’ve sort of gotten from the research is that you sort of feel that there’s not actually a war on women, but there may be a war on what’s inside of women. Is that accurate?
JOY BEHAR: What does that mean?
BEN CARSON: Yeah. The babies. We are killing babies all over the place. We should be — I think people can probably understand. In my case, I spent my entire career, trying to preserve life and give people quality of life, even operating on babies in the womb. Operating all night long sometimes on premature baby, and I get to meet those people when they’re adults. And productive adults. There is no way you’re going to convince me that they’re not important. That they are just a mass of cells and that you can do anything to them.
GOLDBERG: I want to say — I want to ask you this. Have you met with the women who have to make these more horrendous decisions when they have to make them, of whether or not they can bring a child into the world? We talk about bringing children into the world all of the time but periodically, some women feel I just can’t. And are you empathetic to them because we just had-
CARSON: I’m very empathetic.
GOLDBERG: Oh, good. Go ahead, sorry, go ahead.
CARSON: Very empathetic and what I have said is that this is a job for us in the private sector. What we need to do is make sure that we provide adequate day care centers for these mothers, so that they can get their GED, their associate’s degree, their bachelor’s degree, their master’s degree.
GOLDBERG: You’re assuming that these are mothers who are not educated. I’m talking about women who make that–
CARSON: I’m talking about most of them.
GOLDBERG: I don’t know that you can–
CARSON: Let me tell you a fact. Let me tell you a fact. The fact is, a lot of those young girls who are having babies out of wedlock, when they have that first baby.
GOLDBERG: We are not talking about them actually.
CARSON: They stop their education. And that child is four times likely to grow up in poverty. We as a society have an obligation to do what’s necessary to stop that cycle from occurring.
BEHAR: So, how important is birth control then to the Republican Party? They should be out there applauding Planned Parenthood for supplying birth control, mammograms, and everything else. Why are they against Planned Parenthood? Are you against birth control too?
CARSON: I don’t speak for the Republican Party, I speak for me.
BEHAR: Okay for yourself, are you against birth control also?
CARSON: No, I’m not.
BEHAR: Okay, alright. And so I guess you believe in day care centers, and maternity leave, and food stamps, and all of the things that go along with raising a kid if you don’t have the money.
CARSON: Here’s what I believe in. Because I get sick and tired of people, particularly Progressives saying Carson grew up poor. He must have benefitted from government programs. And now he wants to withdraw programs from poor people.
BEHAR: We did not assume that.
CARSON: Wait a minute. I’ve heard that so many times. You’ve heard it too.\
GOLDBERG: Not from us.
BEHAR: Not from us.
CARSON: It’s a bunch of crap. And what I really actually want to do is provide people with a mechanism for coming out of a state of dependency and climbing the ladder and becoming part of the fabric of America.
By Carol Brown / September 15, 2015
Who could have guessed that after the largest terror attack on American soil, the United States would take in record numbers of Muslims? But that is exactly what we have done. And continue to do.
Per a recent Breitbart report, we admit “more than a quarter of a million Muslim migrants each year.” This figure includes legal immigrants with residency status, refugees, asylum seekers, students, and foreign workers. Of note, the number of student visas granted to Muslims from the Middle East has skyrocketed, with a 16-fold increase granted to students from Saudi Arabia since 9/11.
Who could have guessed that after the largest terror attack on American soil, the United States would take in record numbers of Muslims? But that is exactly what we have done. And continue to do.
Written By Ann Coulter |
Deft politicians used to know how to convince the 15 percent on the fence. But even Reagan would look at today’s electorate and say: Who are you guys? We live in a different country, and I don’t remember moving.
At the precise moment in history when the United States abandoned any attempt to transmit American values to its own citizens, never mind immigrants, the 1965 immigration act began dumping the poorest of the poor from around the world on our country.
When the Republican Congress passed welfare reform in 1996, one of the provisions prohibited immigrants from going on welfare for the first five years they were here — a mere five years! It turned out to be the single biggest savings of the entire welfare bill. The New York Times immediately denounced the provision, demanding that at “the very least,” immigrants get food stamps if they become “disabled” after arriving — i.e., the biggest scam in the welfare apparatus — and also that they be eligible for health care under Medicaid. Previewing the line that would soon be adopted by the Democrats’ plaything, Sen. Marco Rubio, the Times proclaimed: “After all, legal immigrants pay taxes like everyone else.”
No, they don’t. Perhaps the Times is unfamiliar with America’s tax system, but half the country doesn’t pay taxes. The only contact most immigrants have with the Internal Revenue Service is to receive money under the Earned Income Tax Credit. That’s money meant for America’s poor!
Also “cruel,” according to the Times, was the Republican Congress’ cut of $20 billion from legal aid for immigrants. (Americans: WE GIVE FREE LEGAL AID TO IMMIGRANTS?) Yes, it’s “cruel” for the American taxpayer not to spring for lawyers suing taxpayers for yet more immigrant benefits.
At the risk of striking a discordant note: We don’t have an obligation to bring in people who need government assistance intended for our own people. You only have to do something you don’t want to do if you’re obliged morally, legally or with a gun to your head. You have to invite your relatives to Thanksgiving dinner because you’d be a jerk not to — but you don’t have to invite your neighbor’s relatives to dinner.
What is the point of bringing in immigrants whom we have to help? Oh, I remember now! The rich need cheap labor and the Democrats need welfare-dependent voters.
One year before Clinton’s re-election in 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began running a “pro-Democrat voter mill” — as the agency itself complained — by processing 1 million citizenship applications before Election Day. It was, The Washington Post said, among “the most damning indictments ever leveled at the immigration service: that it has cheapened U.S. citizenship.” Thousands of criminals were made citizens to ensure Clinton’s re-election. If felony records were ignored, it goes without saying that there was zero effort at enforcing other basic citizenship requirements, such as having good moral character, five years’ U.S. residency or an understanding of American civics.
Kennedy’s 1965 immigration bill, combined with white self-loathing and, in some quarters, WASP-loathing, has made it impossible for America to assert any sensible traditions, even abandoning the requirement that immigrants learn English, our “common medium of speech,” as Justice Louis Brandeis put it.
And if tolerance is so important, why aren’t Third World immigrants asked to be tolerant of American laws and morals? To the contrary, in any cultural conflict, Americans are expected to give way to immigrant values — or be accused of opposing “inclusivity.”
Why does all the bending and conforming have to come from us? Americans didn’t move to Somalia; Somalis moved here. Apparently, the bargain is: We assimilate to Sharia law, and they assimilate to America’s culture of constantly bellyaching minorities.
True, our laws and traditions are very different from the places where most of our post-1970 immigrants come from, but again, they moved here. It makes me wonder if maybe they’d be happier in their own countries.
Welfare is often unpopular with the voters who fund it through their taxes. So California politicians and academics who support it are now redefining welfare recipients as “workers” even if they do almost no work, and as members of “working families” if they live in the same household as someone who does a tiny bit of work. By doing this, they hope to brand critics of welfare as “anti-worker.”
Fifty-six percent of welfare recipients are in “working families,” according to a misleading recent report by the University of California at Berkeley’s left-wing Center for Labor Research and Education. But the report reached that false conclusion by defining even very lazy people as “workers”: “We define working families as those that have at least one family member who works 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week.”
But working just ten hours a week for only about half the weeks in the year doesn’t make you a typical worker, or show industriousness. As Breitbart notes, “If someone is only working ten hours a week, there is probably time to find a second job, rather than rely on government assistance.” The Center that put out this ridiculous “study” is funded not just by taxpayers, but also by government employee unions like AFSCME whose members are hired to administer such welfare programs.
That slanted “study” coincides with a recent push by California’s governor to expand welfare for so-called “workers” who actually do very little work. The Associated Press reported that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is
proposing a $380 million earned income tax credit” for “as many as 825,000 families and up to 2 million Californians. “It’s just a straight deliverance of funding to people who are working very hard and are earning very little money, so in that sense I think it does a lot of good things,” Brown said of the tax credit. The average tax credit would be $460 a year with a maximum credit of $2,653 for families with three or more children, to complement the federal tax credit program. It would be available to individuals with incomes of less than $6,580, or up to $13,870 for families with three or more dependents.
For an individual to have an income of less than $6,580 at the California minimum wage of $9 per hour (and thus qualify for this welfare), he would have to work no more than 731 hours per year, or 14 hours per week. That’s not “working very hard,” Governor Brown. The Associated Press story, which reads like a press release for the governor’s proposed budget, never even questions his strange claim about this being hard work. The AP wrongly calls this huge, record-setting budget “a cautious approach to spending” even though it does nothing about California’s massive unfunded pension problems, and is balanced only due to tax increases that are supposedly temporary but that most California Democrats now want to make permanent, such as those in Proposition 30.
As the Los Angeles Daily Newspoints out:
In 2013, California’s public-employee pension systems—including those for police, firefighters and teachers—were carrying an estimated aggregate of $198 billion in unfunded liability. That’s 31 times the unfunded liability 10 years earlier.
Governor Brown has largely turned a blind eye to pension-spiking by CALPERS that will explode California pension costs by billions of dollars, half-heartedly objecting to only one of the “ninety-nine categories used” in its “scheme.”
As profligate and irresponsible as his budget is, it could have been even worse: Jerry Brown is a model of responsibility and common sense compared to California’s money-wasting left-wing legislature and its big-spending Democratic leadership (the state legislature is two-thirds Democrat and only one-third Republican). The AP quotes Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) demanding yet more “investments” (the trendy euphemism for government spending) and promising that “we can and will do more” to increase such spending. State legislative leaders have sought to expand Medicaid and other government healthcare programs to cover illegal immigrants at a cost of at least $1.3 billion annually, which Brown has not yet fully endorsed, although his budget does earmark the more modest sum of “$62 million to begin enrolling low-income immigrants in Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, on the assumption that President Barack Obama will prevail in a court battle over his executive order.”
The relabeling of welfare recipients as “workers” even when they do little work echoes the approach of the progressive ideological guru George Lakoff, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who advocates reframing the political debate in deceptive ways. As The Atlantic noted:
Lakoff offers no new policy ideas. Instead he suggests that the Democrats reposition the ones they already have, and spruce up some unpopular terminology while they’re at it. He advocates referring to ‘trial lawyers’ as ‘public-protection attorneys,’ replacing ‘taxes’ with ‘membership fees,’ and generally couching the entire Democratic message in palatable—even deceptive—language in order to simplify large ideas and disguise them behind innocent but powerful-sounding phrases.
The Associated Press sometimes follows the deceptive Lakoff ideological approach when it comes to government spending, labeling spending on education and social programs as an “investment” even when the money spent will not be recouped later through higher tax revenue, making the reference to “investment” misleading.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Hans Bader
Posted by Baron Von Kowenhoven — April 6, 2015
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/missouri-to-change-food-stamp-policy-welfare-leeches-wont-like-it-one-bit/
Are you sick of seeing “welfare leeches” in the grocery checkout line with carts stuffed full of junk food snacks, soda and even porterhouse steaks and crab legs?
So is Missouri House Rep. Rick Brattin, who has begun pushing for legislation prohibiting welfare abusers from buying foods that most hard-working Americans can’t always afford. After Brattin heard a food stamp recipient say, “This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” he knew something needed to be addressed.
“The intention of the bill is to get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance,” Brattin said. The program is called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, not the “buy junk food and fresh Maine lobster program.” The bill would ban the purchase with food stamps of “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak.”
“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards. When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either,” Brattin added.
Welfare recipients in the State are none too happy..
Progressives in Missouri are already trying to demonize Brattin and accuse him of starving the poor, but common-sense thinkers know that this is exactly the right kind of legislation to get behind. Welfare abuse has to be reined in quickly, as it’s already an incredible strain on a difficult economy.
Americans have grown tired of welfare recipients who can afford to have their nails done or tattoos inked or put worthless rims on their cars yet ask for “help” feeding their families. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker has mandated that if you want taxpayer dollars, you are going to be drug tested.
Not only that but Walker is seeking a time limit of 4 to 5 years maximum, that a person could receive benefits.
“With this budget, we are addressing some of the barriers keeping people from achieving true freedom and prosperity and the independence that comes with having a good job and doing it well,” said Walker.
Wisconsin isn’t the only state looking at reforms of welfare. Eleven other states already require drug testing of applicants. The testing would apply to able-bodied individuals that have no children and are receiving benefits including Medicaid, unemployment, and food stamps.
Citizens who fail the drug tests will be offered drug-treatment and job training. Wisconsin hopes to save over $3 million over two years, thanks to the program.
Not everyone is pleased, though, especially Democrats who see it as somehow unfair or racist that taxpayer dollars can’t be wasted. Democratic minority leader, Rep. Peter Barca said that the program would only, “…hurt people striving to get to the middle class.”
Drug abuse is a prerequisite for joining the middle class? What are you, high?
The thing is, doing so is what actually hurts the American people.
We should be enabling citizens to find a job and earn for themselves, rather than train them to sit by the mailbox on the first of the month.
However, as previously noted, there is a need for the welfare system here in America in order to provide for those, who can’t do so for themselves, the ability to survive. The problem lies with those who are able to work and are just too lazy to do so.
These are the parasites of society and would likely go find a job if they weren’t being given so much money. Those on welfare should not be able to afford the extras, like designer clothes, designer bags, and illegal drugs – period.
Walker turned down federal funds to expand Wisconsin’s Medicaid program for the 2013-15 budget. Instead, he extended coverage to all those at or below the poverty line and encouraged all those above that line to buy health plans offered through the federal health exchange marketplace.
The Department of Health and Human Services defines the poverty level for a family of four as making $23,850 annually.
About the Author; Baron Von Kowenhoven
MY TWO CENTS…….
Posted By Michael Minkoff on Apr 15, 2014
Thanks to the evaporation of American employment options, the devaluation of the American dollar, and the expansion of government largesse, American citizens are even more dependent on the civil government than ever. In fact, statistics from 2011 and 2012 indicate that there are more people on food stamps than there are women working full-time jobs.
This is the first instance on record where this has been the case in back-to-back years. But I find even the framing of the statistic troubling. Notice what it does not say. It doesn’t say that women receiving food stamps now outnumber women working full-time jobs. It says that people receiving food stamps now outnumber women with full-time employment.
Why would that even be a meaningful statistic? The only thing I can think is that a considerable amount of people on food stamps are actually single mothers. Or, at least, that single mothers are more likely to be on food stamps. Consider that, in 2012—the last reported year on record—45% of all single mothers received food stamps (formally called SNAP benefits). That’s a huge percentage of single mothers.
WHERE ARE THE FATHERS?????
The entire system is really at fault here. For one, where are the fathers? Why are there millions of mothers out there raising children on their own? Because of the absenteeism and profligacy of the American man, women are in a position where they feel they must go to the State for help. And the State offers two kinds of help in most cases: abortions and welfare.
Think about how integrated the socialist system is. The whole debate over abortion, welfare, dependency, national budgets, etc. could be resolved if the majority of men would do one simple thing: stay with their kids and the mothers of their kids and work to provide for them.
It’s amazing how simple the solution is. We say we want the civil government to decrease. It can’t until American fathers increase.
Published March 23, 2014
BATON ROUGE, La. – Louisiana welfare recipients will be prohibited from spending the federal assistance at lingerie shops, tattoo parlors, nail salons and jewelry stores, under new limits enacted by state social services officials.
The Department of Children and Family Services announced the emergency regulations late Thursday. They cover the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program — commonly known as welfare benefits — and the Kinship Care Subsidy Program.
Both programs pay cash assistance to low-income families for items like food, clothing and housing.
DCFS Secretary Suzy Sonnier said the agency decided to ban the use of electronic benefit cards, which work as debit cards, at stores that don’t sell items that are considered basic needs for families.
“This rule will not affect families who currently use the program as intended, which is to provide food, shelter and clothing for families,” Sonnier said in a statement.
About 3,500 households in Louisiana receive welfare benefits, and about 2,400 households get kinship care subsidies, according to the department. Average payments are $192 per month for welfare and $419 a month for kinship care.
The emergency regulations come a week after WAFB-TV in Baton Rouge reported that an Ascension Parish lingerie store posted a sign noting that it accepted the welfare benefits card along with most credit cards.
Also barred in the latest restrictions from taking welfare debit cards are video arcades, bail bond companies, cruise ships, psychics, adult-entertainment businesses, nightclubs, bars and any businesses where minors are not allowed.
Violators of the new regulations will stop receiving welfare benefits for a year for a first offense, two years for a second offense and permanently for a third offense, according to the social services department.
The department also said it is seeking to enact the restrictions in law and allow the state to fine retailers who don’t follow the guidelines. Rep. Chris Broadwater, R-Hammond, will sponsor the bill for consideration in the current legislative session.
“I hope that we can meet the spirit of intent of the program while also ensuring that state and federal tax dollars are being used appropriately,” Broadwater said in a statement.
Last year, the social services agency enacted new regulations that banned the spending of welfare money on cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets. Those regulations also included prohibitions on the use of a welfare electronic benefit card at liquor stores, gambling sites and strip clubs, as required under a recently-passed federal law.
Tracking violations may be difficult, however, because the welfare money can be taken off the electronic benefit card as cash through an ATM. Social services officials said they rely on businesses and the public to report suspected violations.
Just because one part of the country has seemingly lost its mind and is willing to give up their freedom for the promise of more security doesn’t mean everyone is on board.
In Texas, where voters took to the polls Tuesday night, a completely different set of ideas is at play. And if nationwide sentiment is any indication, other conservative and libertarian leaning states will soon follow.
Though only about half of the votes have been tallied so far, the people of Texas have spoken. It’s a roar, in fact. Voters are standing in unison and have overwhelmingly approved a variety of propositions that may well send shivers down the spines of supporters of things like universal health care, rampant welfare dependency, special privileges and gun rights.
The following results speak for themselves.
First on the chopping block is the Patient Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. Apparently, 93% of Texans don’t take well to having the federal government mandate what they should or shouldn’t buy with the penalty for non-compliance being IRS harassment and prison time:
The Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, should be repealed.
REMEMBER, AND NEVER FORGET, AND NEVER LET EVERYONE ELSE FORGET
This one might be a little scary for those folks who spend their lives on their couches smoking weed or mainlining heroin while hard working Americans pay for their dope:
Texas recipients of taxpayer-funded public assistance should be subject to random drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.
You’ll never see the U.S. Congress vote for this, because they’re way too special:
All elected officials and their staff should be subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances as their constituents.
If you’re an anti-gunner this is where you should stop reading:
Texas should support Second Amendment liberties by expanding locations where concealed handgun license-holders may legally carry.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the public has to actually vote on their right to pray in public places. Isn’t that covered by the First Amendment? Just in case it isn’t Texas will make sure you can worship and pray as you see fit:
Texans should be free to express their religious beliefs, including prayer, in public places.
Silly Texans. Didn’t anyone tell you that it’s government, not businesses, that creates jobs and grows the economy?
Texas should abolish the state franchise tax, also known as the margins tax, to encourage business growth.
Common sense laws and regulations. What a novel concept.
There’s a reason why Americans all over the country are flocking to Texas in the hopes of finding the American Dream that has been lost in so many other parts of the Union.
About Mac Slavo
Posted By Mac Slavo on Jan 9, 2014
In a brief speech on the House floor about safety nets that touches on all manner of government assistance, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee suggested that the term “welfare” is no longer politically correct, and like all masters of doublespeak, wants Congress to change its name to a “transitional living fund.”
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) hailed the war on poverty, endorsed government welfare programs, and said the “safety net has to be something for all of us.”
“Maybe the word welfare should be changed to something of, ‘a transitional living fund.’ For that is what it is — for people to be able to live,” she said.
She urged Congress to pass emergency unemployment insurance — “a transitional outreach to individuals who are chronically unemployed,” as she put it.“Quite frankly, of all the wealthy nations, we have the lowest safety net and the highest poverty, because we’re not willing to accept the fact that sometimes an American needs help. Even a veteran — even a soldier.
Following the financial crisis of 2008 when millions lost their jobs, homes and life savings, it is certainly understandable that emergency programs were established to help people transition and get back on their feet.
The operative term here is “transition” – a period of changing from one state or condition to another. Normally, when we think of a transition, especially as it relates to emergency funds from the government, we think short-term assistance. That could mean several months, or as is the case with unemployment benefits, 99 weeks.
However, no matter how Ms. Lee tries to spin this, welfare is no longer a short-term program for the majority of people on it. The “transition” the Congresswoman refers to is one in which a person simply stops working and starts collecting a monthly check from the government for producing absolutely nothing in return.
As we highlighted in a recent interview, and though it’s not necessarily descriptive of everyone who receives welfare assistance, the program itself is being abused on a massive scale. In the case of this particular caller, the “transitional living” involved going from working a job to sitting at home, smoking weed and still getting paid.
Me and people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid.
Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month… and it’s gonna be on time… and we get subsidized housing… we even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas… Why should I work?
Ya’ll get the benefit of saying “oh, look at me, I’m a better person,” but when ya’ll sit at home behind ya’lls I’m a better person… we the ones gettin’ paid!
(EVERYONE MUST HEAR THIS INTERVIEW. Click on the image below to hear the interview.)
What doesn’t make sense is the confiscation of earnings from hard working Americans to the tune of $500 billion per year only to distribute those funds to apathetic leeches who contribute absolutely nothing to society. For many on government assistance you are a joke if you struggle at a 40-hour job for a weekly paycheck.
Transitional living? Hogwash.
People like the esteemed Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would like to see nothing less than cradle-to-grave long term government dependents.
By Patrick Kane / 25 December 2013
Think the war on poverty is working? Think government is the solution to poverty in America? Think throwing more government money at poverty will make it go away? If you or anyone you know believes any of these things, just spend five minutes watching these videos to get a totally new perspective on poverty and how you can actually make a difference.Act on Poverty is a non profit organization that seeks to elevate the discussion surrounding poverty in America. They promote meaningful solutions through new ideas, resources and personal involvement. Watch as these young entrepreneurs change your views on poverty forever.
First watch as they totally demolish myths about solving poverty in only 2:26.
“If instead of having government programs for the poor we simply offered cash payments to the poor, we could lift all Americans out of poverty at a savings of over 2,000 per family” 0:35
Finally watch how you and your community can successfully fight poverty in America without relying on the federal government.
Join Act on Poverty’s fight at www.ActOnPoverty.org
How is this young man getting to work? He gets into his car and drives there — using controls set up so that he can operate the car with his feet.
What kind of work does he do, and how does he do it? He is involved in the design of racing cars. He sits at his computer, looking at the screen, with the keyboard on the floor, where he uses his toes as others use their fingers.
His story recalls the story of Helen Keller, who went to an elite college and on to a career, despite being both deaf and blind. Her story was celebrated in books, in television documentaries and in an inspiring movie, “The Miracle Worker.”
But our culture has changed so much over the years that the young man with no arms is unlikely to get comparable publicity. Helen Keller’s achievement was seen as an inspiration for others, but this young man’s achievement is more like a threat to the prevailing ideology of our times.
The vision on which the all-encompassing and all-controlling welfare state was built is a vision of widespread helplessness, requiring ever more expanding big government. Our “compassionate” statists would probably have wanted to take this young man without arms, early on, and put him in some government institution.
But to celebrate him in the mainstream media today would undermine a whole ideological vision of the world — and of the vast government bureaucracies built on that vision. It might even cause people to think twice about giving money to able-bodied men who are standing on street corners, begging.
The last thing the political left needs, or can even afford, are self-reliant individuals. If such people became the norm, that would destroy not only the agenda and the careers of those on the left, but even their flattering image of themselves as saviors of the less fortunate.
Victimhood is where it’s at. If there are not enough real victims, then fictitious victims must be created — as with the claim that there is “a war on women.” Why anyone would have an incentive or a motivation to create a war on women in the first place is just one of the questions that should be asked of those who promote this political slogan, obviously designed for the gullible.
The real war — which is being waged in our schools, in the media and among the intelligentsia — is the war on achievement. When President Obama told business owners, “You didn’t build that!” this was just one passing skirmish in the war on achievement.
The very word “achievement” has been replaced by the word “privilege” in many writings of our times. Individuals or groups that have achieved more than others are called “privileged” individuals or groups, who are to be resented rather than emulated.
The length to which this kind of thinking — or lack of thinking — can be carried was shown in a report on various ethnic groups in Toronto. It said that people of Japanese ancestry in that city were the most “privileged” group there, because they had the highest average income.
What made this claim of “privilege” grotesque was a history of anti-Japanese discrimination in Canada, climaxed by people of Japanese ancestry being interned during World War II longer than Japanese Americans.
If the concept of achievement threatens the prevailing ideology, the reality of achievement despite having obstacles to overcome is a deadly threat. That is why the achievements of Asians in general — and of people like the young black man with no arms — make those on the left uneasy. And why the achievements of people who created their own businesses have to be undermined by the President of the United States.
What would happen if Americans in general, or blacks in particular, started celebrating people like this armless young man, instead of trying to make heroes out of hoodlums? Many of us would find that promising and inspiring. But it would be a political disaster for the left — which is why it is not likely to happen.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust. Creators Syndicate
LEST WE FORGET;
- In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
- In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).
- In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.
- In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
- The National SEAL Museum , a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.
- Palm Beach County , FL had a 141% voter turnout.
- In Ohio County , Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.
- NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote. Imagine that!
BLAME EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY EXCEPT THOSE RESPONSIBLE!!
It must just be my twisted sense of what individual social responsibility is, but I feel that I am the only person in America that has any concept of the proposition that our out of control violent crime problem, especially as practiced by young male blacks, is a direct result of the disintegration of personal social responsibility. I am referring to the actions of individuals (color is not an element of this definition) that knowingly and willingly propagate offspring that they cannot and/or will not cloth, feed, educate, house and provide the other essential parental guidance necessary to produce a responsible and productive member of society.
Even more disgusting is the government’s promoting and financing as put in motion by L. B. Johnson’s
“Great Society” and then since supported by the great majority of politicians of all parties so as to gain re-election (because the vote of these socially irresponsibles became an ever increasing percentage of the voters). Few seem to comprehend this transition of our culture away from the basic principles of our Constitution was, and continues to be, the foundation of the progressive’s plan to gain the momentum needed to put in place the messiah Obama so as to “fundamentally transform this nation”. Kudos to the Progressives, the Democrats and the Republicans that have been so smoothly duped into this degradation of the greatest nation on earth!
Why do I sense that no one feels as I do? Simple: according to current social standards it is perfectly OK for any female to get pregnant, have an abortion at public expense or give birth to the child at public expense, and then have the government provide all the necessities for that child (and the “mother”) and this is all in the context that the female has the right to do so! Hogwash! Also, the male impregnator has every right to get his jollies without interference or cost! Hogwash! But wait just one frigging minute! The irresponsible actions of these two humans aren’t the cause of the crimes committed by their offspring. No, according to all media sources from MSNBC to FOX the problems stem from a long list (take your pick):
1) Guns – always at the top of the list for crimes by blacks
2) Racial hatred – always on the top of the list for crimes by whites
3) Insufficient government money poured into poor neighbor hoods
4) Drugs and gangs – this is especially responsible for black on black crimes
5) There is insufficient redistribution of wealth from the responsible producers to the irresponsible non-producers
6) Every person has an absolute right to be a free spirit and a requirement to be socially responsible and productive is unconstitutional
I could go on with this list of reasons the public is being told are the causes of our crime problem. But until such time as I hear one politician or social leader stand up and demand that we require, demand our citizens be responsible parents we are headed into oblivion as a great nation. This isn’t likely to happen.
The White House response to the Oklahoma thrill killing was “we haven’t heard about it”, Jesse Jackson’s initial comment was “It’s frowned upon” and of course the very reverend Al Sharpton is missing in action because it doesn’t fit his race baiting agenda! Juan Williams says the murder was caused by a “corrupt culture”. That is not incorrect but it does not even start to address the causes of our culture becoming corrupted. Even though the mother of the shooter is reportedly in prison and no mention of the “father” has been made (could be no one has any idea who it might be) and that the teenager was “raising himself” not ONE WORD has been spoken by anyone or any organization as to the responsibility (irresponsibility is a better word) of the two people who knowingly and willingly put this kid on the soil so as to be a perpetrator of such inhuman proportion. Oh no, we must lay the blame elsewhere! To do otherwise might hurt someone’s feelings and it would certainly cause a very negative media uproar. Most importantly it would cost politicians votes.
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, TX
PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”
Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
As I was watching Meygn Kelly this morning on FOX Cable, she reported on a new Rasmussen Survey that was prompted by something President Obama said. According to the President, government has made America great and always has. The survey asked if you agree, or do you feel the Free Market system has made America great? The entire discussion made my hair hurt.
How about, “THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING AMERICA GREAT?” The government (OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE) has a long history of getting in the way of greatness. The greedy part of the Free Market system has made America appear ugly to the rest of the world. We’ve remained strong because of the American people, especially those patriots whose work ethic, pride of country, spiritual strength and unwavering stand for the values that produce lawful, “good citizenship” and caring conduct. These are the core of America that is unaffected by politics and the extreme left main stream media. They are not looking for a handout, and in times of disaster are the first to give of what they can, as well as getting in there and helping their neighbors recover. You usually do not see them demonstrating, or “occupy” anything but their jobs, communities, family and church.
Hey Rasmussen. How about asking some different questions;
- “Is America greater because of governments determination to re-engineer the American People?”
- “Is America greater because it has supported those who are here illegally not to learn the language or become an active part of the American community with its customs and traditions?”
- “Is America greater because of multiple presidential organizations doing nothing about our porous Southern Boarder, and their refusal to deport anyone who is here illegally?”
- “Is America greater because of the political Lefts creation of the dependant Poor Underclass?”
- “Is America greater since the political Lefts policies have encouraged almost half of the American population to get on some sort of government assistance, disability or Welfare?”
- “Is America greater today with Trillions of dollars of debt?”
There are so many more, but time won’t allow me to list any more. They have heard from me, how about you?