Buchanan got it right

[StevePhelps 0]

I don't often agree with Pat, but I think he is right on in this topic. Here is his article. (I'd link it, but you need a password to get it where I did)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In his 1935 State of the Union Address, FDR spoke to a nation mired in the Depression, but still marinated in conservative values:

"(C)ontinued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "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."

Behind FDR's statement was the conviction that, while the government must step in in an emergency, in normal times, men provide the food, clothing and shelter for their families.

And we did, until the war pulled us out of the Depression and a postwar boom made us, in John K. Galbraith's phrase, The Affluent Society. By the 1960s, America, the richest country on Earth, was growing ever more prosperous. But with the 1964 landslide of LBJ, liberalism triumphed and began its great experiment.

Behind the Great Society was a great idea: to lift America's poor out of poverty, government should now take care of all their basic needs. By giving the poor welfare, subsidized food, public housing and free medical care, government will end poverty in America.

At the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, we saw the failure

of 40 years of the Great Society. No sooner had Katrina passed by and the 17th Street levee broke than hundreds of young men who should have taken charge in helping the aged, the sick and the women with babies to safety took to the streets to shoot, loot and rape. The New Orleans police, their numbers cut by deserters, engaged in running gun battles to stay alive and protect people.

It was the character and conduct of its people that makes the New Orleans disaster unique. After a hurricane, people's needs are simple: food, water, shelter, medical attention. But they can be hard to meet. People buried in rubble or hiding in attics of flooded homes are tough to get to. But, even with the incompetence of the mayor and governor, and the torpor of federal officials, this was possible.

Coast Guard helicopters were operating Tuesday. There were roads open into the city for SUVs, buses and trucks. While New Orleans was flooded, the water was stagnant. People walked through it to the convention center and Superdome. The flimsiest boat could navigate.

Even if government dithered for days, this does not explain the failure of the people.

Between 1865 and 1940, the South -- having lost a fourth of its best and bravest in battle, devastated by war, mired in poverty -- was famous for the hardy self-reliance of her people.

The real disaster of Katrina was that society broke down. An entire community could not cope. Liberalism, the idea that good intentions and government programs can build a Great Society, was exposed as fraud. After trillions of tax dollars for welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training and education have poured out since 1965, poverty remains pandemic. But today, when the police vanish, the community disappears and men take to the streets to prey on women and the weak.

Stranded for days in a pool of fetid water, almost everyone waited for the government to come save them. They screamed into the cameras for help, and the reporters screamed into the cameras for help, and the "civil rights leaders" screamed into the cameras that Bush was responsible and Bush was a racist.

Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome? Sri Lankans and Indonesians, far poorer than we, did not behave like this in a tsunami that took 400 times as many lives.

We are the descendants of men and women who braved the North Atlantic in wooden boats to build a country in a strange land. Our ancestors traveled thousands of miles in covered wagons, fighting off Indians far braver than those cowards preying on New Orleans' poor.

Watching that performance in the Crescent City, it seems clear: We are not the people our parents were. Though government failed at every level, they want more government.

FDR was right. A "spiritual disintegration" has overtaken us. Government-as-first provider, the big idea of the Great Society, has proven to be "a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

Either we get off this narcotic, or it kills us.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree, but how? After 40 years (a whole generation) asking people lose their "entitlement attitude" is a quaqmire worse than Viet Nam and Iraq combined!

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Ditto.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[lawrocket 3]

It's interesting that Pat Buchanan views it as a "narcotic." Even when I was in college and I advocated the large-scale scaling-back of the welfare state, most argued about the "pain" that it would cause.

After 40 years something needs to be done. Will it be easy? No. We'll find millions of people who will be suffering from cumulative DTs from the withdrawal of support. Few people view the prospect of withdrawal symptons from addictive substances as pleasant. DT's ain't no joke. On the other hand, I don't seem to hear of many people who say, "The pain is too bad. I think that you should just keep shooting up instead of cleaning up."

Unsupervised and unmanaged DTs can kill, though. We can't have that. Which means a gradual phaseout of these benefits should begin.

Heck, imagine what it will do for our nation's productivity to have the able-bodied out there doing their parts to make their lives better!

I'm no fan of Pat Buchanan, but I think he's got this one right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StevePhelps 0]

Quote

It's interesting that Pat Buchanan views it as a "narcotic."

Oh Pat was only using the terminology that FDR did.

"(C)ontinued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "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."

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In his 1935 State of the Union Address, FDR spoke to a nation mired in the Depression, but still marinated in conservative values:

"(C)ontinued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "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."

Behind FDR's statement was the conviction that, while the government must step in in an emergency, in normal times, men provide the food, clothing and shelter for their families.

That is actually LIBERAL value....true liberalism that is.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[markd_nscr986 0]

***I'm no fan of Pat Buchanan, but I think he's got this one right.


I'm inclined to agree with him as well
at least in this instance ...........

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

***I'm no fan of Pat Buchanan, but I think he's got this one right.
I'm inclined to agree with him as well
at least in this instance ...........

Even a blind (and polically nutcase) squirrel finds a nut on occasion.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Buchanan seems to make the classic good old days claim. That in the past, people would be good to each other, but liberals have corrupted humanity. Blah Blah blah. But no support for the claim.

Before LBJ, people in that part of the country were killing others for promoting equal access to the polls.

[StevePhelps 0]

As a Texan born in 1955, who remembers pre-cival rights atrocities in my small town I agree to some degree, but history tells us the South did not have a monopoly on racial discrimination.

The point is still the same. FDR said a dependence on Government for long term assistance is not good for the USA. I believe what he said is true, and I believe what LBJ thought was a solution was admirable in theory, but flawed in practice. With the creation of the welfare state we have not eradicated poverty. In fact it appears we have empowered it.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Before LBJ, people in that part of the country were killing others for promoting equal access to the polls.

That is a separate issue. All liberal ideas and plans cannot be lumped together as the same thing. While people fought for equal access to the polls for everyone they did not necessarily argue for a welfare system, while well intentioned, the would have the consequence of ruining a large segment of society.

FallRate

[banjobill 0]

Quote

Buchanan seems to make the classic good old days claim. That in the past, people would be good to each other, but liberals have corrupted humanity. Blah Blah blah. But no support for the claim.

Before LBJ, people in that part of the country were killing others for promoting equal access to the polls.

Unlike most critics of proposals to cut back on the welfare state, I live in "that part of the country". While I, too, disagree with Pat Buchanan most of the time, he has it right (as did FDR before him) in this case. Remember, in order for a subset of our society to exist in a welfare-dependent state, there must exist a large infrastructure to distribute welfare money and services. So, there now exists concentrations of people like those we all saw in New Orleans, but only in certain areas. If you live in a part of the country where there are few welfare dependents, I can understand your holding onto some idealistic beliefs - I did myself when I lived in other parts of the country. But when you see it every day and up close, you begin to realize that our current welfare system incents people to become as they have in places like New Orleans.

B.

....with a capital P and that rhymes with T and that spells TROUBLE!!!

[waltappel 1]

On Bill O'Reilly's radio show last night he said his staff did some research and found that during the Clinton administration the budget for entitlements, e.g., welfare, food stamps, etc., was 13% of the federal budget and that in the current administration entitlements have increased to 15%. The dollar amount of the increase was, as best I can recall, something like $170+ billion.

I'm sure the numbers are arguable and that Bush has little to do with most of those allocations but at first glance it does seem to take some of the steam out of the "Bush doesn't care about poor people" argument.

I think most people can agree that welfare kills motivation but few politicians are willing to stand up and say it because it could cost votes.

edited to add:
foxnews.com put a transcript of O'Reilly's remarks up. Here is a link and an excerpt:

clicky

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.


Walt

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

As a Texan born in 1955, who remembers pre-cival rights atrocities in my small town I agree to some degree, but history tells us the South did not have a monopoly on racial discrimination.

The point is still the same. FDR said a dependence on Government for long term assistance is not good for the USA. I believe what he said is true, and I believe what LBJ thought was a solution was admirable in theory, but flawed in practice. With the creation of the welfare state we have not eradicated poverty. In fact it appears we have empowered it.

I agree with this. We should have given the poor jobs educations and access to family planning.

illegible usually

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As a Texan born in 1955, who remembers pre-cival rights atrocities in my small town I agree to some degree, but history tells us the South did not have a monopoly on racial discrimination.

I'm not suggesting it does. I'm merely pointing out that the South wasn't this giant happy family of people taking care of each other. The claims made about the welfare state may have some truth, but it isn't supported by this claim about the past.

[StevePhelps 0]

I'm not sure I see where anyone claimed it was all hunky dorey "back in the day". I think what was said was the "great societY' thet LBJ envisioned was a failure. I don't think Buchanan was bashing libs either. In fact he quoted a democrat to make his point, that lifelong welfare is a curse, not a blessing or soultion.

[quade 3]

I think the premise that welfare in the area is what caused people to loot is simply ludicrous.

It's a convienient excuse by a few folks that want to lower their tax bill at all costs.

In my opinion, the reason people looted wasn't because of the were on welfare, but rather because they were opportunists. People that had perhaps gone in search of the necessities of life and find themselves faced with unguarded goods.

Further, people shouldn't be so high and mighty when it comes to this sort of behaviour. My guess is that under similar circumstances you'd be surprised to see how many "normal" people would do the same sort of thing.

Wanna do an experiment? Buy a couple of iPods and leave them on a picnic bench at a local park in the most wealthy section of town you can find, hide and see what people do when they think nobody is looking.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not sure I see where anyone claimed it was all hunky dorey "back in the day".

Pat did throughout his commentary.

[StevePhelps 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure I see where anyone claimed it was all hunky dorey "back in the day".

Pat did throughout his commentary.

I guess you read more into what he said than I do.

[StevePhelps 0]

Quote

IFurther, people shouldn't be so high and mighty when it comes to this sort of behaviour. My guess is that under similar circumstances you'd be surprised to see how many "normal" people would do the same sort of thing.

Wanna do an experiment? Buy a couple of iPods and leave them on a picnic bench at a local park in the most wealthy section of town you can find, hide and see what people do when they think nobody is looking.

I do not think I'm "high and mighty" because I won't steal. Many times I've given cashiers money back when they over change me, I've returned wallets with money still in them. I pay my fair share of taxes, etc. I've been poor before. Real poor. Trying to support a wife and 4 small kids in Alaska during the "bust years" (1984-1990) I never once stooped to cheating on taxes, stealing from my employer or anything else. What I did was work three jobs.

Did they loot because they were on welfare? Don't be ridiculous! Nobody implied that! Did they loot TVs and designer jeans because they have no values? IMHO that is more likely. What caused their values to deteriorate so far? While it may not be the sole cause, I can't help but believe creating a sense of entitlement for doing NOTHING didn't help. /soapbox ... sigh

[kelpdiver 2]

> I guess you read more into what he said than I do.

Let's review:

"Between 1865 and 1940, the South -- having lost a fourth of its best and bravest in battle, devastated by war, mired in poverty -- was famous for the hardy self-reliance of her people.

"Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome?"

"Watching that performance in the Crescent City, it seems clear: We are not the people our parents were."

[StevePhelps 0]

Let's be honest. Their racial and ethnic prejudices aside, most Americans provided for their families and for themselves from 1865 - 1940, no?

In most people's observation, that is true. But do we see a lot of that in NO? Maybe we should blame the press, but I don't see it. What I see and hear of is people like my son who while serving his country with the 82nd Airborne, is being shot at while he is trying to render aide.

Again in Buchanan's observation ... is that what we saw in the Tsunami disaster (looting, rape, etc)? No! Why? I have my opinions.

[billvon 2,466]

>most Americans provided for their families and for themselves from 1865 - 1940, no?

As do most today. If you went back to 1920, you'd hear people lamenting that the flappers had no morals and no values. Heck, you'd think the entire country consisted of people who just wanted to party all night. 1930? You'd hear people bitching about how all the dirt-poor people of the depression era had no sense whatsoever, and had not planned for the future.

In every era, the extremes get noticed. No one congratulates the half million people who evacuated themselves from New Orleans, or the majority of the police department trying to do good. The news is about the looters and the poor. We have always had looters. And as someone a lot wiser than me once said, the poor will always be with us. It just doesn't seem that way through our rosy windows into the past.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Their racial and ethnic prejudices aside, most Americans provided for their families and for themselves from 1865 - 1940, no?

In a way, yes. But seen from 2005, there are some major differences. "Providing for one's family" can have many different meanings. In some countries, making $5.00/day allows one to "provide" for his/her family. You & I would probably not survive with such.
Child labor, 16 hour work days, etc... What we have nowadays in "rich countries" is a HUGE middle class. Not the kind that is satisfied with merely providing for the family. And that is our new standard. Providing now means doing what the majority does. Have a decent residence, means of transportation, food, clothes, and once in a while, "indulgence". A far cry from what "providing for the family" used to mean.

Quote

What I see and hear of is people like my son who while serving his country with the 82nd Airborne, is being shot at while he is trying to render aide.

And that's truly sad. But I fear that "Man" at its core will react to extreme conditions, sometimes, in very "primitive" ways, much like what was illustrated in the "Lord of the flies".

Quote

is that what we saw in the Tsunami disaster (looting, rape, etc)? No! Why? I have my opinions

From where we are, it is likely we only saw what fit in the news snips people can tolerate watching nowadays. Also, as dramatic as the events in NO are, I'll venture in stating that THE tsunami was of another caliber. I was talking to a friend of mine last month who happened to be in Phuket on the day it hit (he happened to be in a canoe in a cove at the very moment the wave came to shore), and heard stories of him walking on the beach through cadavers, seeing body parts hanging from trees, etc... Extreme trauma!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[StevePhelps 0]

Quote

In every era, the extremes get noticed. No one congratulates the half million people who evacuated themselves from New Orleans, or the majority of the police department trying to do good. The news is about the looters and the poor. .

Point well taken. Blame the media!