Posted on 02/28/2006 10:25:05 AM PST by Last Dakotan
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore brought former Sen. John Edwards to Milwaukee on Monday to talk about poverty in what was billed as a "community forum" on its effects in the city. But the event had the strong hint of another presidential campaign in the making for Edwards.
An overflow audience turned out at the Hillside Family Resource Center, 1452 N. 7th St., to hear Democrats Edwards and Moore discuss poverty and its impact on the nation and Milwaukee.
The event was the beginning of what Moore says will be an ongoing dialogue between her office and the public on poverty and how it contributes to other problems in Milwaukee.
But for former vice-presidential nominee Edwards - though he hasn't announced any intentions of doing so - it had the ring of laying the framework for another campaign, or at least laying the groundwork for a Democratic agenda in 2008.
Edwards said helping the poor up the economic ladder speaks directly to the moral character of America and the work that former President Lyndon Johnson left behind in his war on poverty of the 1960s.
"We want to do that again," Edwards said.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
I agree.
John Edwards, listen to me. Talk is cheap...very cheap.
Start by parting with the millions you made as a trial lawyer. Donate it to food shelves, Habitat for Humanity, etc. etc.
Remember, John. Actions speak louder than words!
Surely we're going to do that again.
The last one worked so great, why not?
What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts ("Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - 2 Corinthians 9:7). Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of "Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit."
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government "aid" to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do "God's Work."
If a government takes a portion of a man's wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman's property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people's tax money and does "God Work" with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an "Ungodly" man?
Today, the US government (federal, state and local) takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person's paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God's work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the "right things?"
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the "Great Society" programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to "help families and children" or "buy votes" depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960's, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970's there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though "poor" by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The "Great Society" programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world results are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the "Great Society" programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the "Works of God" that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government "guarantees" that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave "government help" for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The "worker's paradises" of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do "God's Work."
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is "Who should help those in need?" I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort. "Charity," enforced by the government, is not charity, it is extortion. "Charity," delivered by the government, is not charity, it is a bribe which corrupts both the giver and the receiver.
Very Sincerely,
2banana
1) ...because the first one went so well?
2) I'll put double or nothing on poverty winning again.
How much in charitable contributions for the poor did Edwards himself give???
"We want to do that again," Edwards said.
Oh my, admission that they want to follow in the footsteps of the New Deal, and the Great Society, both of which undermined our freedoms and tried to put the Constituton in some back room of a Podunk museum.
"We want to do that again," Edwards said.
Trillions in debt.
The Welfare State.
Urban Renewal.
Destruction of the Black Family.
And the LBJ plan worked so well.
"War on Poverty" to these folks means taking money away from people who earn it and tossing it into the public toilet of dependency, welfare, quotas and non-productivity.
"War on Poverty" SHOULD mean providing opportunities for jobs and education, and PUNISHING HARSHLY (i.e. WAR) those who fail to take advantage of said opportunities.
Lead from the front, John - get out your checkbook.
They will cut their own throats. They will race to get leftward of each other because that's where the only fundraising can be found that Hillary hasn't locked up.
It becomes even more critical that the NY GOP put forth a Senate candidate and Get Behind Him or Her to drain Hillary's coffers. Make her spend that money on NYC advertising. It's very pricey. But if they don't get a candidate out there, she will save up for 2008.
Is Mr. Edwards going to underwrite some of the costs of a new war on poverty. He's loaded, isn't he?
I wonder how many minority folk live in his neighborhood in NC?
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Hypocrites.
You take YOUR money and start fightin'.
What's not to like? Sign me up!
Good. Let it begin with Mr. Edwards returning some of that fortune he amassed suing the medical profession in the "the Doctor Gave my Baby Cerebal Palsy" scam he runs.
Until Edwards and the rest of his fellow travelers open their own wallets, homes and hearts, they have no right to expect the rest of us to do likewise.
Not only do we have to provide the ladder, we have to strap them on our back and do the climbing for them, then once they are at the top they sue you for splinters they may or may not have gotten on the rungs YOU walked on.
Different day, SOS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383357/posts
Edwards says ending poverty biggest issue facing country - (where was he on 9/11?)
BOSTON.COM ^ | APRIL 14, 2005 | Mark Pratt, AP Writer
Posted on 04/14/2005 1:08:29 AM EDT by CHARLITE
Oh, yes. The first one worked so well.
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.