Posted on 05/05/2005 8:39:49 AM PDT by Always Right
A very famous leader said the following. Who was it?
The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.....The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America.
A. Thomas Jefferson
B. Ronald Reagan
C. Attila the Hun
D. The Ultimate Hero of Liberal Democrats
A. Thomas Jefferson
FDR
Attila the Unnngh.
JFK
You think your AlwaysRight.
Even bigger
Franklin Roosevelt
Do you think Attila's wives called him "Hun"?
D. FDR
E. Underdog
It was either Hun or Hung. After years of investigation, the FBI concluded they could not tell.
F. John Kerry on crack
Does Welfare Diminish Poverty?
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - April 1984
by Howard Baetjer Jr.
Printable Format
Does government-provided poor relief decrease the amount of poverty? That it does is an assumption at the heart of our nation’s very large antipoverty programs. In fact those programs were instituted for the purpose of making themselves obsolete. Shortly before passing the Social Security Act in 1935, for example, Franklin Roosevelt declared to Congress, “The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief . . . . Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.” Thirty years later, as he signed the first antipoverty bill of the Great Society, Lyndon Johnson said, “We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief or welfare rolls. We want to offer the forgotten fifth of our population opportunity and not doles . . . . The days of the dole in our country are numbered.”
The assumption that welfare helps the poor also explains why so many people today reject in practice the appealing old notion of classical Liberalism that government should play no favorites: that the force of law should not be used to benefit some people at the expense of others. While they recognize and perhaps regret that welfare does involve the force of law to benefit some (those considered poor) at the expense of others (everyone else), they feel the principle is justifiably violated since welfare diminishes need. But is this assumption true? Does welfare, when all is said and done, really help solve the problem of poverty?
There is good reason to believe that it does not. What is worse, there is substantial evidence that welfare impedes progress against poverty. In our country, worst of all, welfare seems to have increased poverty. What follows is a brief summary of the thinking and evidence that lead to this surprising conclusion. We would do well to consider it seriously, for if it is true, our national antipoverty policy is doing great disservice precisely to those it is intended to help. In the words of Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, “corn-passionate policy requires dispassionate analysis” of policy effects. Analysis of welfare shows it to be a problem for poverty, not a solution.
Experience with government intervention in Britain turned Mr. Baetjer to the cause of liberty. So, after a year back at St. George’s, he left teaching to write the first drafts of his essay, The Golden Rule of Laissez-Faire, an argument on moral grounds for limited government and a free society. Since the fall of 1982 he has been enrolled in a master’s program in political science at Boston College, concentrating on political philosophy. He will receive his degree at the end of May.
Howard recently has joined in the work of FEE as a full time staff member. He plans to continue studying, writing, lecturing, and practicing liberty in the effort to draw others to the free market way of life.
Has a Leftist ever spoken the truth?
G. Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi
Only by mistake but, then they make an immediate retraction after someone reminds them of the talking points.
Just for fun......Close your eyes and picture James Carville saying this. (Don't actually look at him, closing your eyes will prevent that stomach acid taste from filling-up your mouth)
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
My dear old mother always says that to me.
If anyone ever thinks they are wrong ... then they are knowingly lying.
That's the truth. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.