Over the years, many, if not most, Republicans have gone on record protesting federal funding of many social programs designed to help Americans in need. With the country hit hard by recession, the need for these types of programs have increased and, you guessed it, conservative politicians and pundits alike have made their displeasure known.
Thankfully, President Obama sits on the right side of this debate and has advocated for and signed into law legislation that increases these public support programs.
If you were lucky enough to not have suffered a lay off or home loss during this recession, it’s easy to overlook just how many have fallen victim to the decline in the economy. According to USA Today, government funded programs designed to reduce poverty have grown during the recession; such programs now one in six Americans – a record. Experts predict those numbers will continue to grow. Currently, close to 10 million Americans receive unemployment benefits, while the Medicaid rolls have grown 17 percent since the recession began. That number, too, will rise as the new health care law is predicted to add another 16 million recipients to the list in the next few years. The number who receive food stamps has grown over the last couple of years as well, nearly 40 million Americans – a 50 percent increase since the start of the recession – currently receive food stamp benefits.
These numbers are sobering. It’s easy for Republicans and others to talk about ‘small government’ and cry that anti-poverty spending jeopardizes the future health of our economy. The reality is that our present economy is in shambles and we have no real idea of when it will rebound. Americans are suffering and it is the government’s duty to provide for its people until the economy gets to a point where they can then provide for themselves.
We are entering a critical mid-term election period and many offices across the country are up for grabs. As a voter, you can support anti-poverty programs by supporting those lawmakers who not only agree that government should provide economic safety nets but fight to make sure that it does.
“Americans are suffering and it is the government’s duty to provide for its people until the economy gets to a point where they can then provide for themselves.”
Americans could provide for themselves easily if land and resources were not gobbled up by corporate entities that pump the water out from under your feet and sell it to you, cut the trees your were born under and sell them to you, etc. The Commonwealth nation is the only model for a self-perpetuating society. The government’s job is NOT to provide for the people, it is to police and manage corporations who seek to invade and usurp the land and resources that all people should have access to and use of.
I am a big fan of yours and usually like what you have to say, however I do disagree with your poverty position. Both you and I know that in some ways this recession was caused by misguided government attempts to fight poverty through home ownership. The relaxining of credit standards in norder to increase home ownership levels amongst the poor did not bring them into middleclass, as was hoped. Rather the poor and marginally poor were left with a monthly payment that they could not afford once the easy credit term ended. Also many poor people learned how to take advantage of the system for financial gain. This all led to the demise of FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC.
Like you I grew up in an inner city ghetto but my ghetto was on the Southside of Chicago where family stability does not exist. In many Black families there is no father, substance abuse runs rampant, children grow up not going to school etc. Families that are headed by single parents are not capable of producing educated children, who are then capable of supporting themselves.
A second element in poverty is that there are too many women who are willing to “hookup” with men who have nothing going for them. Then to add to their folly there seem to be lot of women who are willing to get involved with men who are regular jailbirds.
When it comes to poverty I do not believe that it can by fought by government transfer programs in any of the various forms in which they come. Poverty must instead be fought by people chaning their cultural attitudes in lifestyle choices.
Thank you.
You are absolutely correct Your Honor. Poverty programs to help the indigent, the homeless, those living below the poverty level so poor that any enjoyment is out of reach all need help now! Everyone support President Obama as he charts the way for us all. Vote for Democrats. The odds are against us because the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court opened the floodgates of corporate contributions to political purposes which are not reportable as a rule. The Citizen’s United decision also hurts the economy because the companies can take from funds needed to hire more people or to improve the business for the purpose of allowing corporate executives to decide how revenues may be allocated for political purposes. The conservative Supreme Court justices who hypocritically legislated from the bench to help their GOP Republican candidates deserve a swift impeachment once we can gain more of a majority in Congress and end the Republican filibuster abuse in the Senate.
While I can applaud you sense of civic duty, I would ask where you think funding for these social programs will come from? I for one will vote for which ever candidate proves to be fiscally responsible in terms of how they spend the tax money (which is my money).
The issue here is not the intention, after all who doesn’t want to help those in need, but rather the issue here is the method of which to go about it. If we just pretend the funds are there for our countless social programs we do no one a favor. But if we get back to some sort of fiscal reality then we can start doing some meaningful good.
thanks for the thoughts.
Oh, and perhaps you could point me to where in the Constitution it spells this out: “Americans are suffering and it is the government’s duty to provide for its people until the economy gets to a point where they can then provide for themselves.”
Since the government is by the people, for the people and most importantly of the people, this statement is the same as saying ‘Americans are suffering and it is American’s duty to provide for it’s people until the economy gets to a point where they can then provide for themselves.’ It just doesn’t work. The government doesn’t exist independently, but it is you and me. Sure, we have representation, but that is not the same as a separate entity. When you logic is faulty you draw all kinds of false conclusions.