Is the safety net more of a trap?
The Skeptic is constantly hearing how terrible the right is for wanting to cut back on the social safety net but he can't help wondering when the safety net became less about saving the down and out and turned into a trap to keep them that way. A century ago when Americans fell onto hard times they were dependent on the kindness of others for assistance, often churches or private charities would offer the down on their luck a helping hand, usually in the form of a temporary place to live or enough food to get them through another day. It wasn't all that dependable or organized but people rarely died of malnutrition or exposure to the elements so it must have been sufficient. When the Great Depression struck the numbers of the unemployed shot up and more people were living in tents or on the road than ever before, the system, such as it was, was stretched to the breaking point. Times were so tough that even Al Capone, the gangster from Chicago opened a soup kitchen and most people couldn't care less that FDR was about to shred the Constitution to set up all manner of what amounted to government charities supported by tax dollars.
And yes, it was absolutely against the Constitution and with a little research of your own you can easily find plenty of evidence that FDR himself knew it. The Skeptic knows the Constitution doesn't matter much to a lot of you today but just for the hell of it look up a speech FDR gave while still the governor of New York. The Skeptic thinks it was a speech he gave on March 2nd, 1930, it's clear that he well knew the federal government was severely limited as to what it could constitutionally do about a great number of things but times were so bad and he'd made so many promises during the campaign he felt he had to do something.
He probably could have done a lot more if he'd taken the time to pass an amendment making it legal, if he could have passed an amendment he wouldn't have had all the battles with the Supreme Court. But, that was a path not taken, instead he hired people to do a lot of make work type of jobs, there were some great projects like the TVA and the Hoover damn but there was a lot of stuff that we could have done without as well. Roosevelt also unconstitutionally gave us Social Security, a program Democrats have been using as a mainstay of virtually every election since it was signed into law. It's become standard fare for Democratic politicians to swear that the mean old Republicans will destroy Social Security if you were to ever let them into power, never mind the fact that there have been many Republican administrations since than and it's still around, but that doesn't stop them, they still trot out the old lie like clockwork every election.
The safety net, as these programs have became known, stayed pretty much the same until the sixties, oh there were some free food programs for the poor where excess food was made available to the poor but that's about it. Then in the sixties we got Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Social programs, also unconstitutional, tell the Skeptic where you find them in the Constitution if you disagree, sprang up everywhere, two of the most expensive were Medicaid and Medicare.
It got to the to point where there was virtually nothing the federal government wouldn't do for you. You need help with the rent, you've got it. Have a baby but you don't know who the daddy is, no problem, we'll help with the bills. Need food but you're embarrassed to have all that packaging around with the labeling indicating you got it from the government, not a problem, we'll give you food stamps. You don't like the food stamps because people look at you funny when you use them? No problem, we'll give you a card like a credit card, that way no one will be embarrassed. You get the idea, it became acceptable to be poor in the sixties and seventies. Now don't get the Skeptic wrong, he knows things happen, he understands that the economy has ups and downs and he knows people need the occasional helping hand but at no time in our history have so many people been so totally dependent on the government for their subsistence, never. So what went wrong? How did a War on Poverty make so many people incapable of caring for themselves? How did the federal government start doing things that are clearly the responsibility of the individual states.
Well it's not a big secret that only the Skeptic knows, no, no, nothing like that at all, deep down inside we all know the answer. It might be even deeper down in some people, people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who know it but they can't admit it because the answer means they've spent their lives promoting solutions that made the problem far worse. Some skeptical types might say they have known it for years but didn't care because they were personally making a good living agitating for even more government programs. Democratic politicians know it too but it isn't easy to admit that you've spent a lifetime advocating for government programs that don't work.
The answer lies in human nature and a country that might have been so successful that it could afford to deal with issues that most of the world regarded as foolishness. So while this great country was all up in arms about animal rights, gay rights, transgender rights and dozens of others the Skeptic can't think of at the moment, a large portion of the world's population was worrying about how they were going to get their next meal or if a crazed dictator might be going to have them put to death for breathing his air. Only a country that is too successful could spend so much time on issues that in the larger scheme of things don't mean all that much. Human nature because if people can not work and survive as well as they can by working they will, maybe not everyone but you can be sure a good percentage will take the route of staying home and waiting for the welfare check to arrive. A country that need not worry about its citizens basic needs will do things that it would never do if it weren't so successful, like passing laws that increase regulations on businesses that do more harm than good. Congressmen and women feel they have to pass laws, that's why they're there but what if there is no need for the laws they pass? What if there were already more than enough laws to protect children, the environment, endangered species, workers, non workers and countless other things? Then what? What if those laws were in place but just not enforced? Well, if you're a legislator you simply pass more laws hoping for a better result the next time but as we now know that doesn't usually work out so essentially it's nothing but a colossal waste of time except that it causes problems, big problems. And before you laugh this off as a foolish argument talk to a real small businessman, the one man operation small businessman and ask him or her what it feels like when you're just getting by and the government imposes some of these regulations. It's tough enough for a large or medium size business to comply with this nonsense imposed on them by uninformed lawmakers but it can be a death knell for real small businesses. And don't think that because some very small businesses are sometimes excluded from these laws that they aren't impacted. When you pass a law to protect a Spotted Owl and it drives up the cost of lumber it impacts every small builder in the country. When you pass laws that designate millions of acres as wetlands it makes millions of acres of land impossible to develop which drives up the cost of other land.
Are you getting the picture? Lawmakers pass all sorts of social programs making it easy for people to not work and at the same time they pass laws that make it difficult for businesses to survive. The Skeptic thinks this just might have something to do with our current situation...anyone else think that's remotely possible?
And yes, it was absolutely against the Constitution and with a little research of your own you can easily find plenty of evidence that FDR himself knew it. The Skeptic knows the Constitution doesn't matter much to a lot of you today but just for the hell of it look up a speech FDR gave while still the governor of New York. The Skeptic thinks it was a speech he gave on March 2nd, 1930, it's clear that he well knew the federal government was severely limited as to what it could constitutionally do about a great number of things but times were so bad and he'd made so many promises during the campaign he felt he had to do something.
He probably could have done a lot more if he'd taken the time to pass an amendment making it legal, if he could have passed an amendment he wouldn't have had all the battles with the Supreme Court. But, that was a path not taken, instead he hired people to do a lot of make work type of jobs, there were some great projects like the TVA and the Hoover damn but there was a lot of stuff that we could have done without as well. Roosevelt also unconstitutionally gave us Social Security, a program Democrats have been using as a mainstay of virtually every election since it was signed into law. It's become standard fare for Democratic politicians to swear that the mean old Republicans will destroy Social Security if you were to ever let them into power, never mind the fact that there have been many Republican administrations since than and it's still around, but that doesn't stop them, they still trot out the old lie like clockwork every election.
The safety net, as these programs have became known, stayed pretty much the same until the sixties, oh there were some free food programs for the poor where excess food was made available to the poor but that's about it. Then in the sixties we got Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Social programs, also unconstitutional, tell the Skeptic where you find them in the Constitution if you disagree, sprang up everywhere, two of the most expensive were Medicaid and Medicare.
It got to the to point where there was virtually nothing the federal government wouldn't do for you. You need help with the rent, you've got it. Have a baby but you don't know who the daddy is, no problem, we'll help with the bills. Need food but you're embarrassed to have all that packaging around with the labeling indicating you got it from the government, not a problem, we'll give you food stamps. You don't like the food stamps because people look at you funny when you use them? No problem, we'll give you a card like a credit card, that way no one will be embarrassed. You get the idea, it became acceptable to be poor in the sixties and seventies. Now don't get the Skeptic wrong, he knows things happen, he understands that the economy has ups and downs and he knows people need the occasional helping hand but at no time in our history have so many people been so totally dependent on the government for their subsistence, never. So what went wrong? How did a War on Poverty make so many people incapable of caring for themselves? How did the federal government start doing things that are clearly the responsibility of the individual states.
Well it's not a big secret that only the Skeptic knows, no, no, nothing like that at all, deep down inside we all know the answer. It might be even deeper down in some people, people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who know it but they can't admit it because the answer means they've spent their lives promoting solutions that made the problem far worse. Some skeptical types might say they have known it for years but didn't care because they were personally making a good living agitating for even more government programs. Democratic politicians know it too but it isn't easy to admit that you've spent a lifetime advocating for government programs that don't work.
The answer lies in human nature and a country that might have been so successful that it could afford to deal with issues that most of the world regarded as foolishness. So while this great country was all up in arms about animal rights, gay rights, transgender rights and dozens of others the Skeptic can't think of at the moment, a large portion of the world's population was worrying about how they were going to get their next meal or if a crazed dictator might be going to have them put to death for breathing his air. Only a country that is too successful could spend so much time on issues that in the larger scheme of things don't mean all that much. Human nature because if people can not work and survive as well as they can by working they will, maybe not everyone but you can be sure a good percentage will take the route of staying home and waiting for the welfare check to arrive. A country that need not worry about its citizens basic needs will do things that it would never do if it weren't so successful, like passing laws that increase regulations on businesses that do more harm than good. Congressmen and women feel they have to pass laws, that's why they're there but what if there is no need for the laws they pass? What if there were already more than enough laws to protect children, the environment, endangered species, workers, non workers and countless other things? Then what? What if those laws were in place but just not enforced? Well, if you're a legislator you simply pass more laws hoping for a better result the next time but as we now know that doesn't usually work out so essentially it's nothing but a colossal waste of time except that it causes problems, big problems. And before you laugh this off as a foolish argument talk to a real small businessman, the one man operation small businessman and ask him or her what it feels like when you're just getting by and the government imposes some of these regulations. It's tough enough for a large or medium size business to comply with this nonsense imposed on them by uninformed lawmakers but it can be a death knell for real small businesses. And don't think that because some very small businesses are sometimes excluded from these laws that they aren't impacted. When you pass a law to protect a Spotted Owl and it drives up the cost of lumber it impacts every small builder in the country. When you pass laws that designate millions of acres as wetlands it makes millions of acres of land impossible to develop which drives up the cost of other land.
Are you getting the picture? Lawmakers pass all sorts of social programs making it easy for people to not work and at the same time they pass laws that make it difficult for businesses to survive. The Skeptic thinks this just might have something to do with our current situation...anyone else think that's remotely possible?