The usual screams of "Socialist!" and snotty questions like, "So you want government to take care of you?" are mostly missing.
Thanks, all.
(Oh, and no one has posted personal attacks on Mr. Green, so far.)
Thank you both for your comments. I was about to say this has been one of the more interesting economic threads I have read on FR in a while, when I saw WilliamofCarmichael had already expressed the same thought in post 80.
One of the ironies is that I think Bush understood going into the presidency that most people are emotional rather than logical when it comes to voting for their economic self-interests, i.e. his "compassionate conservatism." I believe though for the most part his attempt to care for the needy and give a hand up to the poor in America has been fatally flawed because in most cases he has sought to do so through government programs. Such a job is simply too big for the government, and government's attempt to do it corrupts the characters of the "givers" (aka taxpayers) and the recipients in the process. At one time I believe the Republican party was being more innovative in its approach to problems of the poor (Kemp's enterprise zones; Schundler's many initiatives). But that spirit within the GOP seems to have died or gone dormant.
IMHO the GOP needs to once again find and promote innovative, market-based solutions that unleash the power of communities, families and churches to address these issues. That was part of the genius of Reagan: He understood the power of emotion (for instance, his famous definition of the difference between a recession and a depression) and sought to make structural reforms that unleashed the drive and initiative of the average American while encouraging every person to realize his or her full potential.
On the other hand, after watching the aftermath of Katrina, I wonder if it may be more effective for grassroots people just to jump in and push government out of the way (i.e. the churches that have gone into the areas affected by Katrina and provided aid from food to housing repair while the government was still dawdling). Perhaps it is more effective to build strong communities so that people don't perceive a need for the government to "take care" of them. But either way it's a tall order.