Barack Obama makes an interesting statement in his interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilley that aired Monday night.
From CNS News:
“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t -- what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness,” Obama said.
You know, that's a great analogy...except that isn't what Obama's advocating.
Obama advocates having some government thugs come over to your house and demand you fork over some cash for your neighbor, or they'll rough you up and just take it anyway.
That's what happens when you have government dispense charity.
Under the system of charity America used to have--the private system--people essentially do as Obama described in his analogy.
People see their neighbors in need, and they bring them some groceries. People see a neighbor in need, they come over and help with tasks around the house. People see a neighbor in need, they share some clothes or cash. That's the American way. That's the Christian way.
Obama's way is the Marxist socialist way.
The socialist way provides no choice in whether to help or not; if you have no choice, is there any moral benefit or blessing to the giver? Of course not.
The socialist way also doesn't build community or relationships between people. You can't have a friendship with a government check, or build community with the welfare office.
It also does a poor job of accountability, as our welfare state showed before the welfare reform of the mid 1990s--and still does to some extent. Handouts without accountability bred generational dependency. It refuses to look at root causes of need. It refuses to make moral judgments about need. It fails to teach and require those in need to move beyond receiving a fish to fishing for themselves.
No, Barack Obama's solution is for neighbors to rob one another, and use government thugs to do the dirty work.
That's not love, that's not charity, and that's not neighborliness.
2 comments:
Excellent article...and great job of reading between the lines on what a politician says in flowery words and what his ideas actually translate to in the real world. The liberal media never specifies what these politicians' programs really mean at the individual citizen level. Thanks for keeping the focus where it should be! It's also interesting to note a recently released study that contrary to the the perception of all of these "caring", liberal politicians who can't initiate and grow enough "gov't charity" programs on the taxpayers dime, in practice, liberals don't hold a candle to conservatives when it comes to voluntary charitable giving. It would probably be an even larger difference if citizens were allowed to keep more of their own money and fund the charities of their choice instead of the gov't choosing for them!
While I do appreciate this article, I have to disagree with the current welfare reform policies (I live in New York). I became a recipient of welfare in 2003 and found it disturbing that my babysitter was getting paid more than I was to go to work. I worked for my welfare check which only covered my rent and left me 90 dollars for the month. If I had a part time job, I would lose the cash benefits so I couldn't very well make more money. Once I found a job and got off welfare, I lost food stamp benefits and child care subsidies and health insurance for myself. I am now a paycheck away from being on welfare again. I agree that people need to step and help each other out. However, please don't assume that because there are less people on welfare rolls they are not on the brink of being back on it again.
Post a Comment