I don't post often but as I read the Ensign this month (March, 2009) I was intrigued by what I read. I don't mean offense to Obama but it seems that giving so much money that we dont have away is creating slaves of our citizens. Here is the reference that I agreed with:
Many programs have been set up by well-meaning individuals to aid those who are in need. However, many of these programs are designed with the shortsighted objective of “helping people,” as opposed to “helping people help themselves.” Our efforts must always be directed toward making able-bodied people self-reliant.
Gullible Gulls
I clipped the following article from the Reader’s Digest some time ago. It reads:
“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …
“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.
“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.
“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?
“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.”2
The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.
We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and political, temporal, and spiritual independence.
In some countries it is extremely difficult to separate earned from unearned benefits. However, the principle is the same in all countries: We should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence.
Governments are not the only guilty parties. We fear many parents are making “gullible gulls” out of their children with their permissiveness and their doling out of family resources. In fact, the actions of parents in this area can be more devastating than any government program.
Bishops and other priesthood leaders can be guilty of making “gullible gulls” out of their ward members. Some members become financially or emotionally dependent on their bishops. A dole is a dole whatever its source. All of our Church and family actions should be directed toward making our children and members self-reliant. We can’t always control government programs, but we can control our own homes and congregations. If we will teach these principles and live them, we can do much to counter the negative effects which may exist in government programs in any country.
We know there are some who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot become self-reliant. President Henry D. Moyle had these people in mind when he said:
“This great principle does not deny to the needy nor to the poor the assistance they should have. The wholly incapacitated, the aged, the sickly are cared for with all tenderness, but every able-bodied person is enjoined to do his utmost for himself to avoid dependence, if his own efforts can make such a course possible; to look upon adversity as temporary; to combine his faith in his own ability with honest toil. …
“We believe [that] seldom [do circumstances arise in which] men of rigorous faith, genuine courage, and unfaltering determination, with the love of independence burning in their hearts, and pride in their own accomplishments, cannot surmount the obstacles that lie in their paths.”3
I may be wrong but I think Republicans feel that people should work for what they get and Democrats feel that people have the right to get what others have worked to get. Somebody please set me straight if I am wrong.
5 comments:
I am sure Doug will set you straight!
In defense of liberals, I am sure it is not their intention to make the less fortunate totally dependent on the government, but that is end effect nevertheless. Conservatives have been saying this for a long time, but the Republicans in power have poorly embodied such conservative principles because they are called cruel and cold-hearted if they don't go along.
Historian, Alexander Tyler, said "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."
Author, Alexis de Tocqueville, added to this idea saying, "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
I heard a recorded voice mail froma lady calling the bank and telling them that they had no right to repossess her car and that they should wait because within a year she would have the money because Obama was now President. She was expecting a handout. It made me laugh but yet angry at the same time. Why do people expect handouts and "never learn how to fish". I have had financial help at times in my life but I never EXPECT a handout.
Democrats believe as well that people should work for what they get. I am a Democrat and I believe that. We do not believe that others have the right to get what someone else has earned. I am a Democrat and I do not believe that others, any others, have the right to get what I have earned.
I do believe in taxation at levels that allow our government to help care for those who are in need. Government needs funds for a great many worthy reasons: regulatory agencies, military, foreign relations, etc.
There are those who do not learn to fish because of habits learned at the public trough. However, the percentage is low. The unemployment rates over the years prove that. Of those on the dole, some are those that Mr. Moyle has the largesse to pity.
Let's say that one half on the dole are deserving souls that none of us here blogging would refuse.
Let's say as well that, at the very worst, the unemployment rate is at 8% as it is today, a thirty year high and by no means an overall average. 8% of us need help to get by right now. I am not appalled that 92% of workers are bailing out 8%, are you? I believe that the government does indeed try to ferret out the undeserving, but that is easier said than done. The fact that Republican administrations continue to fund unemployment needs throughout the decades is proof that Republicans, regardless of their indignation and disdain of welfare recipients, are unable to provide any fundamental change even when presented with the power to do so (otherwise, I trust they would have done so and that you would not be concerned about it today, the problem having been solved).
Naturally, Republicans can blame Democrats for their inability to get things changed, but that is just too easy. They have had opportunities at state and federal levels. They have been successful to some degree in some areas, but the desired overhaul goes wanting.
I agree, the desired overhaul does go wanting. I give credit to Clinton who signed the welfare reform act during his presidency. The welfare rolls declined and poverty was reduced. I am sorry to see that Obama and the Dems effectively nullified that reform with the latest spending bill. No, Republicans do not begrudge helping people and do not disdain those in need, as Doug claims.
The simple fact remains, whenever Republicans try to reform or improve something, the Dems block it out of fear that the Republicans will get credit for it.
This may seem like nit-picking but I said "regardless of their indignation and disdain of welfare recipients" not the poor and needy, which may nor may not be the same thing.
When you all make comments regarding this particular issue, there is certainly a pejorative connotation attached to every post dealing with welfare. The proof of this is that throughout these months during which this issue has resurfaced constantly, no one has sung any praises of the value of the program as the reason for the post. Only in the ensuing comments have some admitted that tax dollars to help the poor and needy is ok.
So I have a question for you all: Is it the existence of the welfare program that you take issue with or is it its administration? If you think that it ought not exist at all, say so. If it is its administration and you therefore believe that welfare as a concept is a good thing, then it would be better to target the abuses and make suggestions rather than just repeat your indignation at the abuses. As it is, your comments have a resolute ring of disapproval of the concept. If this is not fair a judgment on my part, then I suggest that you not attack the concept with blanket analogies (teaching a man to fish for example), and attack specifically the abuses involved.
Post a Comment