• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Personal responsibility vs. welfare state

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
We just got word from our young relative in Louisiana today. She and her family evacuated to Houston before Hurricane Katrina hit. They were able to stay in their home through Hurricane Rita, although they had to board up their windows, lay in provisions, candles and gasoline enough to last for the next few weeks. The kids are sick of drinking powdered milk, but they will survive just fine because they listened to the weather reports and looked out for themselves.

After they returned from Houston, she gathered up as many of the food and clothes they could spare and took them to one of the distribution centers to help those harder hit. The folks at the center sent her clothes back home with her, telling her that they had more than enough small and medium sized clothes. They explained that most of the people that were taking refuge at the center were generational welfare recipients and were, almost without exception, "too well fed to fit" in the small sized clothing she had brought.

They also told her that New Orleans has the highest percentage of welfare recipients of all the major cities in the United States, which may explain why they simply sat back and expected the government to take care of them like it always has.

This girl was ranch raised and taught to take care of herself and her own family. Too bad more of New Orleans didn’t have the same upbringing. Her aunt sent me this after we visited about the aftermath of the latest hurricane:

In 1927, a major unnamed hurricane struck the city of New Orleans.

It was actually more powerful than Katrina. The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city. Katrina missed it by 25 miles.

The interesting difference is the response the government gave in 1927 to those hurricane refugees, compared to the refugees of Katrina, err-I meant "survivors" ---(sorry Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).

How much aid did the government dispense at that time? Zero, nada, not one dime. And you know how much aid the army offered? The only aid from the army came in the form of loaning the city of New Orleans tents and camp stoves. Ironically, later, the army sued the city for reimbursement.

So what was the big difference here? It was the attitude the people had towards the government at that time, compared to the attitude that Katrina's victims have. The 1927 survivors expected nothing from the government.

80 years ago, people understood that the government was there to "protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, Americans expect the government to"provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a major difference.

And now, a week later, when the government failed on all three levels of local, state, and federal to provide for their needs, Americans were sorely disappointed.

Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton spend their opportunities arguing about semantics. "They shouldn't be called refugees, they should be called survivors" Unfortunately, they missed the boat. It was a perfect opportunity to deliver a very basic message to their people.

Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.

Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.

Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated.

Its free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there are enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. No longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. It’s unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most of the "survivors".

A couple of other points should be brought to light. G. W. has asked the congress for 50 billion dollars worth of aid for the "survivors" and clean up of the city. Interesting isn't it? One million people displaced and out of work in that city, sitting all day in shelters, waiting for the next handout. Of course, the thought never occurred to anyone that just maybe, "hey, we should give all these folks jobs filling sand bags to plug the levees and clearing trees." (Wonder how many of them would want government aid if they had to work for it?)

And finally, they haven't hardly begun the task of picking up dead bodies, and already the finger pointing has started. The congressional hearings and probes will go forever. Millions will be spent on a wasted diatribe of a bipartisan "witch hunting expedition"- all of which will be nonsense. If you're a Democrat, you are going to blame the president. If you are a Republican, you are going to blame the mayor and the governor.

This is another case in point of how the government will once again fail its people, they could have spent the millions educating the poor and misplaced citizens of New Orleans so that they could go out and get a new and better life, instead of wasting it on useless blame investigations.

Well, I'm just a dumb redneck joke teller and certainly not educated enough to run my government. I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who will tell me why my ideas and thoughts will not work.

Maybe I should just stick to joke telling, eh?

Signed,

Martin aka the postman
Editor, The Postman's Corner.
9/18/2005
 

jodywy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
5
Location
Cabin Creek, Carlile,Wyoming
The folks at the center sent her clothes back home with her, telling her that they had more than enough small and medium sized clothes. They explained that most of the people that were taking refuge at the center were generational welfare recipients and were, almost without exception, "too well fed to fit" in the small sized clothing she had brought.
:shock: gees I am too well fed :lol:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
How do you truly conquer a people? It's expensive, but a "war on poverty" seems to work every time. Leaves it's victims virtually helpless.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
10,861
Reaction score
4
Earlier I was slammed by Steve of New Jersey on this post...he said my charity of clothes was " morally wrong" in that I also took the tax deduction that is offered for such.

Anyway....I had done this same thing once...I had given about 8 of those big plastic tubs of my clothes to the women's shelter/center. This is shelter where they furnish women--low income/ coming off welfare/homeless. etc-- with clothes to go out in to the work place for a new beginning...nice things instead of jeans and a T shirt. I worked in a VERY HIGH end job for 20 yrs...the kind where everything had to match. So I had outfits , shoes, handbag,s access, etc..the whole kit and kaboodle

The people @ the center called me about 2 days later, after they had time to go through all the goodies and said for me to come and get them that they were way too small for anyone they serviced, they needed things size 20+. I'm an average sized gal....wear a size 8 or 10..... So I brought them home....and it's been about 3 yrs later and I still have them.

So I was wondering if the people @ the center were just too lazy themselves to go through all the stuff an sort it.
 

jodywy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
5
Location
Cabin Creek, Carlile,Wyoming
We give alot of stuff to the DI (deserert industrys) It a shelterd workshop for the handi cap. It is run by the Chruch Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They take all clothes ,books ,furniture bikecycles etc and clean and fix them up and resell. Alot of the clothes that will not be resole here are repackaged and sent to over seas releife and charities( they give to the better charities those with the lowest overhead).
We even will shop at a DI store, I will buy work shrits for $5 apiece....(they used to be $4) and used paper back books ten cents.... better then the libary just drop them off when we go by the DI , to be sold again and give somebody a job.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Earlier I was slammed by Steve of New Jersey on this post...he said my charity of clothes was " morally wrong" in that I also took the tax deduction that is offered for such.

This being based on your assumption that the Bush Tax cut was immoral and wrong, I was and still am compelled to say that when some one wears clothes, tires of them and then donates them to charity, so they can claim a tax credit, while complianing that the rest of US should not get a tax cut is unethical,,,but if you would like to insert morally wrong I can live with that..,,,,,

I believe that when charity is given with the idea of getting Tax benifit it is not very charitable,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I would also agree that many charities are bad at accepting "gifts" when the gift is not the "cash" they really want................,,

I would also encourage you to find a place that is willing to take your items,,,,,
 

Latest posts

Top