On July 28, 1998, (amid laughter) President Ronald Reagan told the Representatives of the Future Farmers of America "the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, 'Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help'.''
Well, I'm here to tell you that statement is not true. You see, the government saved my family.
When my parents moved from the mid-west to Oregon in the early 1950's with 3 young children in tow, my father worked odd jobs as they made stops in Minnesota, Montana, and Idaho. While he looked for work in Portland, our family was on welfare. We received food stamps. He eventually got a job with the city, and was able to support his family, while building up a small pension, that was paid for by taxpayer money. My mother was a stay at home mom, having added two more children to the family.
In 1968 my father left the family, and my mom was forced to enter the workforce at the age of 47. She had 4 children at home; 3 school age and 1 in college. With no real work skills to put on a resume, she did not find a job right away. She did not want a hand-out, but had no other choice than to again apply for welfare and food stamps. She finally went to work in a factory, until she retired at the age of 65. The factory had slow periods, and instead of laying people off, they formulated a 'one week on, one week off' program. During my mom's weeks off, she collected unemployment. The only other time she missed a day of work was when she broke her arm. When she retired, her only source of income was social security, and 2 small pensions from her job and my dad's with the city. During all the time she worked, she did not have any extra money to put into a 401K, or other retirement account.
In 1974, my mom was able to purchase a modest house through HUD. She was proud of the fact that she was able to pay off the mortgage a few years early. In 2005, she sold the house for a nice profit and moved to a retirement community. In 2006, she broke her hip and needed to move to assisted living. We searched for a place that would take Medicaid, once her money ran out. But she never had to use Medicaid. She died suddenly in 2007, and left a small inheritance to her 5 children...the money left from the sale of her home that she was able to purchase through HUD.
My older sister and I were able to attend college through a federally funded work-study program. Two of my nephews attended college through student loans.
My sister and husband were teachers. My nephew is a teacher. My dad was a city employee. My brother is a city employee. These are jobs paid by taxpayers.
Sure, we had some help from family, friends, churches, and charitable organizations, but without these government programs, I don't know how we would have made it. These programs were all implemented to help Americans, and were created by....eek...that dirty word....liberals....
The Social Security Act of 1935 was part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 was part of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society domestic agenda. The law was intended to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in post secondary and higher education.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was established on September 9, 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson.
Welfare was part of FDR's New Deal.
You see, we are the government. It was you, your parents, and your grand-parents who helped my family - and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Through welfare, food stamps, social security, unemployment, and college financial aid, we have been able to not just survive, but get ahead and live the American Dream.
We are all hard-working, law-abiding citizens who contribute to society.
President Reagan, tell me again.....what are the ten most dangerous words in in English language?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi again,
ReplyDeleteNice post, however...I think you have somewhat taken Reagan's words and missed the point.
He was not talking about the government in a sense that every bit of government is bad, rather his point was regarding freedoms. When the government gets invovled freedoms decline.
This is not just my opinion but a common struggle for man... freedom begins and ends with the ties of government.
Now Reagan is not knocking on your father who used to work for the city or your brother who still does. He is not even rejecting food stamps, the Oregon Trail card or HUD. He is speaking on a greater context and that is keeping government out of the lives of American people as much as possible.
The problem is that many times our American government act like Nanny's and does not allow us to make decisions for ourselves, therefore reducing our freedoms.
While most conservatives are not excited about welfare etc, they know it is necessary. The problem is when you show someone they can recieve something for nothing they want to keep doing that. Your family used welfare in a way that it was intended and is entireably respectable. HOWEVER... there are individuals who think the government owes them everything, while contributing nothing. This is when the government becomes bad as it encourages dependence.
NOW even more than ever there is more pressure from Government on our lives.. imagine when Obama's new healthcare plan roles out and people who have had healthcare for years are told they can not get this coverage or have this procedure because the government decides it is too expensive. It is one thing if government offers assistance to those in need, but it should not mandate national health care...
To summarize, Reagan wasn't talking about Government that you highlighted, rather he was talking about freedom with the idea that less government equals more freedom as it always has meant.
Very good start to your blog... however you should probably switch to wordpress if you have long term intentions and want to monetize your thoughts.
Another Lampella
Hmmm....people take advantage of government from all angles. People take advantage of tax breaks, as much as those who take advantage of welfare, but it doesn't seem to get people's ire up as much as welfare programs do. I used Reagan's comments because I often hear people criticizing government programs, and I wanted to share my family's experience with it. You made an interesting statement when you said that Reagan was 'speaking on a greater context and that is keeping government out of the lives of American people as much as possible'. Does that include keeping government out of our personal lives?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. This blogging stuff is all new to me...maybe you can enlighten me about wordpress.
First off, tax breaks and welfare are not the same thing. While one is giving less, another is receiving.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to our personal lives: Governments' job is to provide protection (locally and nationally), provide the necessary infrastructure for society to exist and support those who cannot support themselves.
Is there more? Yes, of course schools, necessary healthcare and welfare for the needy, reasonable methods for anyone to pursue education etc.
However, governement has blown up with pork barrel spending and "3 million dollar projectors" and "bridges to nowhere." Meanwhile the top %5 of income earners are footing 95% of the bill.
Back to personal lives: Will government always be in our lives? Yes, but I say as little as possible.
ty
This subject is mostly how government is perceived. One of my co-workers is a gun owner who hunts. He is one of those people who is "buying up all the guns" before Obama takes that right away from him. My co-worker is scared that the government will take away his personal freedom. On the other side of the spectrum we have issues such as gay marriage and abortion. These are issues where the government is also getting involved when it is not their business. I understand that guns, abortion, and gay rights are "wedge" issues, but they are examples of how governmental decisions could affect our personal lives. If Reagan warned the American people about big government, then why was he a pro-lifer? I don't buy it. Reagan did not give diddly squat about big goverment...he only cared if it affected his issues, not the issues of your average American.
ReplyDeleteHere is another example of how liberals and conservatives do not see eye to eye on this issue. Conservatives refuse to believe that these programs help people, while liberals generally do. A conservative would turn this sentence around and say that liberals refuse to believe that these programs do not work. How can there be a solid debate if our fundamental beliefs are so different?
Hi Whipcreamy,
ReplyDeleteI do not intend to steal this blog, but I will throw in my own two cents.
In response to: If Reagan warned the American people about big government, then why was he a pro-lifer?
This question is a bit misleading as you create the impression that Reagan tried to end Roe vs. Wade. The point I am trying to make is that as president, or senator etc, you can have fundamental views about something and not act. What did Reagan do that abolished abortion? Nothing... did he feel that life begins at conception? yes, but that does not mean that he pounded down the throats of the American people. So for your argument that 'he was a pro-lifer therefore he must believe in big government' does not hold water.
Furthermore you mentioned gay marriage with the premise that government has stepped in... rather specific states have voted, and in many cases time and time again for or against the right for a gay couple to marry. This is not government, rather seemingly majority of the people.
Does this make it right, that the majority of voters are against gay marriage? I do not know. The fact is the constituion of the US and in each states allows for the majority to be the deciding factor.
Here is some food for thought.... IF Hillary Clinton would have won the primarys gays probably could marry in California.
I really do think that conservatives believe that many government programs work.... if they did believe they did not, there have been historical times when they had the legislative and executive power to end them (Bush 01' to '06). Rather, a conservative view point would be more in line with helping when they fall but getting them to eventually stand on their own. TOO MANY programs encourage people to never get back up.
Even the fabled Bill Clinton saw that when he ended national Welfare.
Surely there are fundamental differences in beliefs but it is not fundamental beliefs that ruin the debate, rather differences on where and when governement should be appropiate.
Dear lord P and P, your blog is being over run with conservatives. Civil ones thus far, it appears. I am hopeful that your audience includes plenty of like minded folk and that those of us with a different ideology are repspectful of you and your opinions.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'd like to comment on Whipcreamery's comment.
To whit: "[i]Here is another example of how liberals and conservatives do not see eye to eye on this issue. Conservatives refuse to believe that these programs help people, while liberals generally do. A conservative would turn this sentence around and say that liberals refuse to believe that these programs do not work[/i]"
I disagree with this. Conservatives, as a rule, are well aware of how these programs help people. Overwhelmingly, conservatives caution against these programs being used to help people who do not need the help or who otherwise may not needed the help had the program been managed in such a way that it would be distasteful enough to have to ever rely upon it and therefore engage in behaviors and make decicions that does the utmost to avoid such reliance. And threfore, the sentence would be turned around to state: Liberals seem disinterested in or dismissive of the abuse and unintended consequences of these programs when they are not managed in a way that is vigilent of that potential.
I think that those with significantly differing politcal ideology ccould more civilly debate and reach common ground more often if the villification of each other can be squelched.
For example, Let's say the liberal's position is that it is inevitable and acceptable that some amount of abuse will occur in these programs because if there was too heavy a qualifying criteria, many truly in need might not be helped.
And let's say the conservative position was too light a qualifying criteria results in many who do not truly need the help getting it and others who otherwise may have excercised more caution in life wind up needing it, because they felt secure in the back up that the program offered them if they make bad decisions.
In my experience, those two come much closer to the truth than: conservatives want people to suffer and liberals want every person on welfare.
And if those are the two positions; if liberals could believe that conservatives want to help all of thosethose truly in need, and conservatives could believe that liberals want those who are not truly in need to make their own way- then there is the potential to work on how programs are designed and implemented so that only those in real need are helped and no one is encouraged to trade self sufficiency for public assitance.
One barrier though, may be the agreement on what level of difficulty is sufficient such that government dollars should be spent to aleviate it. It seems that conservatives think that some degree of hardship is tolerable and even motivating. I don't think I know the liberal corrolary to that one. I fear my bias can not express what I think it is without it sounding insulting.
Stwo....
ReplyDelete"then there is the potential to work on how programs are designed and implemented so that only those in real need are helped and no one is encouraged to trade self sufficiency for public assitance."
Well said.
I'm baacckkk!!
ReplyDeleteOK, Ty, the reason I mentioned taxes is because people keep criticizing 'welfare programs', saying they allow people to take advantage of them, and not do anything to get ahead in life. Well, there are an awful lot of wealthy people who take advantage fo tax breaks, so that they are not really paying their share. Some people will find a way to take advantage of anything they can. Just because some people will try to take advantage of welfare programs, doesn't mean they should be eliminated.
As far a big-government, I agree with Whipcreamy. It seems like the people who say they want to limit big government, want to control our personal lives. In the state of Oregon, we have doctor assisted suicide and medical marijuana, which was voted on by the voters. Yet, some in the federal government have tried to reverse them. Admit it, there are a lot of the far right who would like Roe v Wade reversed, and want to restrict gay rights. They seem to want to hold onto their rights ro bear arms, but want to restrict other rights.
I think with Bush, government has gotten bigger, not smaller.
I would like to ask my two new conservative friends, Ty and Stew (or anyone else who wants to comment)......just what do you consider big government? What has the Bush administration done to make government smaller?
First off, while I think history will show Bush was an admirable president for his war on terror he is definitely no conseravative, at least fiscally. Government has grown under him and is one reason conservatives did not come out in this last election... to his defense he did have 9/11 which changed a lot of how he had to operate, wars, defense, etc. Regardless he did not consistantly try to limit government.
ReplyDeleteNext subject.... ok, I need to put this delicately. The fundamental difference between the right and the left, in regards to abortion is where life begins. A conservative believes: it is not about taking away the options of the woman rather giving rights to the unborn.
Now I understand the strain, sometimes public scorn, etc that can come from an unplanned pregnancy. However in my mind life begins at fertilization. That point of view just so happens to inhibit the rights of the woman IF that was ever legally accepted. I would think most pro-lifers are not out to take away a womans right, but protect the helpless.
So P&P in reference to your comment: "They seem to want to hold onto their rights to bear arms, but want to restrict other rights, " maybe it is not about restricting the right of another but providing the right to the helpless.
http://vimeo.com/1154344 Check it out... I understand Roe v. Wade... I think. I wouldn't want someone else to tell me what I can do with my body, but maybe it is not about just the mother's body??? Just my point of view, not trying to pursuade anyone.
Ty, I'm glad you made this comment: I wouldn't want someone else to tell me what I can do with my body, but maybe it is not about just the mother's body???
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin (and McCain was a little murky on this) wants abortion illegal EVEN in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. Nobody likes abortion. Being pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. But consider this.....suppose your wife, daughter, or sister was told by her doctor NOT to get pregnant, because her life would be at risk. She's not married, and is not on birth control. She's raped and gets pregnant. Now, having or not having the baby would be her choice, right? If Roe v Wade was reversed, she would not have that choice...the government would force her to have the baby. What if your wife, daughter, or sister was married and pregnant. She has complications and her doctor tells her that her life is at risk if she continues the pregnancy...it's either her life or the unborn baby's life. Wouldn't you want her to have the right to make that choice? Why should the government tell her she must die in order to save the baby. I think education is the key. Abortions should be safe and uncommon. But there are some times when the woman needs to make a choice. Abortions actually went down during Clinton's administration, during a time of economic gains.
It is a tough one.... Surely there are scenairos that we can all paint that make it seem reasonable. Surely rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother are positions that are hard to argue against, however speaking without exact numbers they are surely rare.
ReplyDeleteSimply... a lot of abortions are products of convience and timing, a sad truth to the debate.
Yet, why do you want to take away the woman's right to choose? You do not know the reasons for their decisions. And why is it that the people who are so concerned about abortion will not think twice about killing thousands of innocent people in an illegal war??
ReplyDelete