Liberal vs. Conservative: Florida, The Second, Welfare State

Gary H

New member
Duhhh

Having said that, I am driven to state the obvious. When I listen to the seemingly sincere arguments from the Democratic press and their cohorts, I am struck with my inability to take the facts and come up with their conclusions. I try to make the effort, but usually end up shaking my head. It as if they come from another planet.

This Florida business has fundamentally bothered me right from the start. Here is the rub. I believe in individual responsibility. If a voter goes into the booth, it is up to them to vote properly, to make sure that the chad is history and if not, they should request another ballot. I sit in my home and I believe that it is my responsibility to defend family. I believe that it is my responsibility to find employment and if help is needed, to use governmental resources for a limited time.

The side that I don't understand believes that the individual is incapable of acting without government performing the above functions. Individuals must be protected from their own ineptitude by government. These two points of view cannot be resolved. They cannot be negotiated. There is no middle ground. You cannot change a welfare state mentality. This mentality did not arise spontaneously. The left has promulgated it for fifty years. It has taken over the public school system and the press. It must be opposed because it will eventually destroy this country.

The last month has radicalized my views. I finally see what the Democrats stand for. The question is, what do I do about it? The root of this problem lies in the press and public education. How do we effect change where it counts? Can a boycott of ABC be organized? Can we accuse them of news and program content bias and then get others to view only non-ABC programming and watch non-Disney/Dreamworks movies? Can we hit one of the media giants and hope that the others learn and moderate? What do we do?
 
Actually, in practice the two points of view can be compromised, and they are every day. Minimum wage laws, electrical codes, speed limits, social security, laws against sniffing airplane glue, child labor laws - all these are designed to protect people from their own stupidity. I don't hear people bitching about the child labor laws too much.

It's a question of how far government should go in each case. Libertarians are usually strong, healthy, successful young men. But there are children in the world, and senile old people who can't think clearly, and disabled people who can't defend themselves.

The biggest problem with the Demo case in Florida is that all these problems were caused by Democrats, who designed the ballots and who aggressively signed new voters up without educating them.
 
RHC:

Good point.. In my own post I indicate that I support a safety net. I'm not saying that government should not have any regulatory function. My point goes to a mindset that makes us look at things so very differently. This Florida process lost my support right up front. If it were a matter of the machines malfunctioning in one precinct and not others, then I support a remedy, but voter error??
 
Gary,

I echo your sentiments. I, too, wonder how the two sides can be reconciled. I fear they cannot...

I even take it a bit further: I see the liberals casting their votes on election day supporting causes that are intrusive and unconstitutional. I take no issue with their right to vote, that is guaranteed. But I do take issue with their direct support and action to subvert the rights of all Americans with their feel-good, unreasoned, and arrogant approach to government. They are effectively committing a crime right before my eyes, and there is nothing I can do to stop it. Their ignorance in just what they are doing saddens me...

RHC has a good point, but I stand by my belief that government is not to be used as a social safety net. That is not its purpose. Those out there who need help should seek it locally, and not force the millions of taxpaying Americans to support them. This is more rightly left to the various charities. The children, the infirm, and the disabled could and should be supported by the communities in which they live. To do otherwise is folly for our country.

Here are a couple of quotes that speak to the issue (I apologize for their length):

--------------------

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage."

The above was penned by Professor Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago while we were still a British colony

--------------------

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett, compiled by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
David Crockett Member of Congress 1827-31, 1832-35

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in apart of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - "'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.' "This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.... But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it' for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?' "'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. "'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.,

"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.

"'My name is Bunce.' "'Not Horatio Bunce?' "'Yes.'

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. "I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. "In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"'Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying;

"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. "He came upon the stand and said: "'Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

--------------------

Ken
 
Sadly, I cannot begin to compare to this previous post above, but I too think that the liberal mindset of the govt. providing for those in a welfare state is wrong. It's not what the US is: the opportunity for the individual, through his or her own efforts, to find a modicum of success and provide for their families.

Liberals seem to want parents instead of a governing body...someone to provide for them and make sure everybody gets an equal share of the American dream. They simply cannot handle that in a capitalist society, there are people that occupy the low rungs. They can move up, as seen in many immigrant families, through education and hard work. But someone always occupies those rungs.

I lived for a time on Capitol Hill...not as any official of the US govt, but only in that neighborhood. It amazed me to see these people sitting in their $500,000+ homes, (location, location), sipping their latte', warming up the beemer, while reading the ultraliberal Washington Post and crying for what amounts to socialism...that every worker gets an equal share of the pie. Probably would be adverse to switching places, or giving up some of their hard won earnings.

They just don't get it.
 
Your position is respectable, consistent, and a traditional American point of view. I'll even help you out. Here's another quote, not as eloquent, but which also supports your point of view:

"I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering... The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people." Herbert Hoover, 1930
 
RHC,

I can't accept that from Hoover. I'm sure he said it, but it hardly carries any weight from the partiarch of the New Deal form of liberalism/socialism that we are now struggling with...

Ken
 
Are you perhaps confusing Herbert Hoover, a conservative Republican and an engineer, president from 1928 to 1932, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat and a lawyer, president from 1932 to 1945?
 
My recollection is that, although FDR was the chief instigator and loyal proponent of the New Deal, the ground work was laid by HH.

He kicked open the public coffers to bring the country out of the depression by creating (or allowing the creation of) the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

By the time Congress met in December 1931, Hoover had abandoned his reliance of private measures and began proposing direct action by the government to defeat the depression. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was created in 1932 to provide emergency financing for troubled banks, insurance companies, and other associations, and by the end of 1932, it had loaned out $1.5 billion. The Glass-Steagall Act extended more credit and released some of the government's gold reserves to aid industry. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act created discount banks to help refinance private homes and prevent foreclosures. Hoover also encouraged the reform of bankruptcy laws to aid the speedy reorganization of businesses and the settlement of overwhelming debts. He supported a loan of $300 million to states for direct relief, further expansion of public works, and drastic cutbacks in the federal government. However, Hoover refused the demand of Democrats in Congress, who pleaded for government to distribute money to the unemployed.

"Hoover, Herbert Clark." Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

At least in the midst of all of this, he still was worried about the size of the Federal government and the creation of a welfare state. I will now accept the quote from HH, but he didn't do it proud towards the end of his administration...

Not being a presidential scholar, any corrections/clarifications to my statements are humbly accepted and appreciated.

Ken
 
Hoover did create the RFC, which did not loan to individuals.

If you read the Encarta article carefully you will see it does not say he brought out the Glass-Steagall Act. That's because that's one of FDR's New Deal Programs, passed in 1933. I'm not sure what the Federal Home Loan Bank Act is, I 've never heard of it. If the article is referring to the Home Owners' Financing Act, which created the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, that is also an FDR program, passed in June of 1933.

Hoover was not an ideologue - he was a practical man and a politician. He took a few minor steps towards relief, but they called homeless settlements "Hoovervilles" because he wouldn't do more.

The overall question here, whether the government will be active or not, was settled when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

The power to act for the general welfare stated in the Constitution, and the federal government's power to override state law made our current situation foreseeable.

The poverty of the Depression was partly created by the government, and was too big for any local government or charity to handle. The average person felt like something had to be done. Those of us who haven't lived through a time when one-third of the workforce was unemployed should not judge too hastily.
 
Back
Top