South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is being ridiculed for a recent speech where he appears to compare poor people to stray cats and connect having “ample food supply” to increasing welfare demand.
Here is the key quote:
“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”
Perhaps his grandma should have also told him not to quote her on this one.
Almost sixty percent of kids in South Carolina participate in free or reduced cost lunches. Bauer insists that those free lunches appear to be driving down test scores:
“I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.” … “You go to a school where there’s an active participation of parents, and guess what? They have the highest test scores. So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don’t attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.’”
I just hope that he does not read this blog and see the availability of haggis in a can for lunchroom cafeterias, here.
By the way, have you noticed that the number of truly moronic statements goes up dramatically with the free availability of microphones. I can show you a bar graph where politicians near free mics have the worst ideas in any state.
There are plenty of people willing to adopt children. If you were at all familiar with the process, you would know that there is a several year wait. We could also let gays adopt.
Also, once you instituted the policy of subsidizing the bad behavior, I think you would see a drastic drop in the number of children born to people who cannot take care of them.
jhngalt5:
Who is going to “adopt” all these children? You? Fat chance.
There seems to be a perception that families that live in poverty are all sitting round on their butt’s watching soaps. Not so by any means. The numbers of the working poor, people that work at (and can work more than one job at a time) jobs that do not pay a wage great enough to to raise them beyond the poverty level. They work at jobs that do not pay a living wage. Check the below statement regarding SC:
“Working poor problem getting worse
Jobs paying below poverty line rise 4.7M in four years” an article regarding the report by “The Working Poor Families Project, based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data,…”
“In 11 other states, at least 33 percent of working families were low income: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27181041/
Also, SC is a right to work State.
Dauh and or Bdaman or BeTheMann.
Don’t try and blame me for your troubles. You see you’re BeTheMann and I posted 3 minutes apart.
I am stating that if a parent cannot care for a child–in the absence of government handouts- then the child should be taken away. Welfare for the truly disabled (through no fault of their own-no obesity or drug addiction problems) should never be ended as a safety net for the helpless. In the absence of such disability, people will just have to deal. Yeah, they may go out on the street, damage property and act like fools, but the government could always call in the National Guard to temporarily help police (as in post-Katrina New Orleans). If someone is able-bodied but can’t support themselves or get private charity (b/c who really wants to give to that charity?), then they need to figure something out. They can get a job, stay with relatives or friends, or even sell pot (much less a social evil than welfare). I don’t care what they do–as long as thy’re not doing it with taxpayer money. I think instituting welfare requirements, i.e. having newborn children of welfare parentsbeing adopted, drug-testing recipients as a condition of receiving the funds, or requiring community service work hours so they can essentially “earn” the money would be a good place to start. If you tell people they have to pick up trash on the side of the road to get their check, I think all of a sudden you’ll see a lot of them “finding” a real job opening.
jhngalt5:
“they need to give up the child for adoption if they can’t provide for it, either personally or through family or private charity.”
you make no mention of welfare. So if you are on government assistance then take the child away. That what I am reading into it, and it matters not if the child is being cared for.
jhngalt5:
“I am suggesting that welfare end and the government take away children that are then not provided for.”
how do you just end welfare? I would like to see that as well but how do you do it without causing a huge societal upheaval? And would private charity be able to provide for everyone that needed it? Some people are going to need more help than private charity can provide, how do you help them?
You cannot just leave people to fend for themselves if they are unable. Even I think that some people need help and private charity may not be able to provide for all that is needed. I would certainly like to give it a go, but I doubt it will ever happen. But Americans are a generous people as evidenced by our response to the people of Haiti so one never knows.
Dauh and or Bdaman or BeTheMann.
Duh 1, January 25, 2010 at 7:28 pm
BeTheMann,
That was a great example of a troll-like comment.
*********************
Like calling the kettle black. Duh and or Bdaman or BeTheMann
I did not post this statement. Do not attribute it to me. Please. I have been ignoring you, please do the same.
My father, as a poor black man in the South made it out for one– and every single one of his 5 brothers and sisters did, too. Mike S. you have a weird conception of common sense. It makes sense to me to not subsidize irresponsible reproduction. Also, makes sense to me to lower or abolish the minimum wage so instead of “starving” the former government leeches can earn money doing jobs that farmers are too poor to pay them today—thus, the black market for illegal labor.
Byron- thank you! I also thought I was pretty clear.
jhngalt5:
“I am not suggesting the government take away children that are being cared for.”
“I’m also referring to high school girls, like the ones in Chicago, who purposely get pregnant in order to receive government benefits. We need to tell people like this that they need to give up the child for adoption if they can’t provide for it, either personally or through family or private charity.”
seems to me that is what you said.
jhngalt5,
So after we end welfare we should let people starve? When politics trumps common sense humanity suffers. I wonder how many
financially comfortable Libertarians there are and how many made it on their own?
I am not an objectivist- I am a libertarian—-Nonetheless, I admire the work of Ayn Rand and decided to use the John Galt moniker. I am not suggesting the government take away children that are being cared for. I am suggesting that welfare end and the government take away children that are then not provided for.
jhngalt5:
“First, it is proper for the state to intervene on behalf of the defenseless, i.e. children”
Agreed but that is not what you said in your post, you specifically wanted to restrict a person on welfare to a certain number of children. Even though government support was being given. Obviously a child can be taken away from a parent for neglect.
“Second, I think providing the necessities of life for a child(food, water, clothing, shelter, and some supervision)if a pretty good criteria to judge whether a child is being taken care of.”
That was not your initial issue. It was the state has a right to take a child from a parent for being on welfare. I ask how you can defend that point if the child is being taken proper care of?
Does the state have the right to take a child away from it’s mother if she is on welfare and is providing adequate care to the child? I don’t possibly see how you can answer in the affirmative and be an Objectivist. The child would have to be taken by force if the mother did not want to give up parental rights.
Swarthmore mom,
I don’t think bdaman posted that comment. The timing is too close to the return of AY, and it follows along with a game that has been played lately.
I do my best to point out personal attacks in hopes of reducing them. Civility in discourse is much more likely to lead to better understanding, and it has a much better chance of resulting in compromise that will benefit more people.
Ay, why AY, why do you wish to continue with this nonsense. Who do you think I am now. Please contact the professor and ask him to verify the IP address for me and who ever else you think I am.
Please AY, do it for yourself, do it for the rest of the online community. You’ll be glad you did. Then you will be able to focus more instead of wasting away.
As someone who spent a 37 year career on the frontiers of poverty it never ceases to amaze me how poor and working class people are characterized by those who know nothing about them, or who alternatively may have pulled themselves up out of poverty and so lack sympathy for those who can’t. However, this politicians statement need not be refuted by arguing why people are impoverished, but looking at how they are impoverished.
It has been the monetary policy of the financial establishment,
leading the bought politicians by the nose, to maintain a certain level of unemployment in the country. This is ostensibly because the wealthy fear inflation, but really as a methodology of keeping wages low and workers afraid. In his term with the Fed, the excrescent Mr. Greenspan raised interest rates every time unemployment fell below 4 or 5%. This would as he said “slow down” the economy and warn employers to stop hiring. In the Reagan years the definition of unemployment was doctored to
stop counting those who hadn’t found work within 6 months, stating that they “were no longer looking.” In truth from that time our real unemployment, back by Fed policies and unfair trade agreements that destroyed our manufacturing base has run from 8 to 10%. With this current economic disaster the unemployment rate is usually twice what the government claims it is. Could someone be stupid enough to blame the victim? Yes, that
has been proven on this thread.
If you are a human being with any sense of compassion think about what the people and families facing loss of job, in a terrible job market are going through. Please don’t give me the
crap about retraining, or being willing to work at any job. Most people will do anything to save their families. The Lt. Governor exposes himself as someone incapable of putting himself into others shoes. So do a few of the posters here. Before we have a discussion about how stupid the poor are, perhaps it would be helpful to discuss, how stupid, heartless and venal people like this politician and supporters are. As someone who was orphaned at 18 and who put himself through different levels of school, while never being out of work, I spent a good deal of time skirting poverty. I know what it’s like and what it feels like.
Since I spent so many years working with the impoverished, disabled and disadvantaged I have a better idea than most about the truth of the matter, than those who smugly pontificate.
If one is unable to feel a twinge of sympathy or empathy for people who have never had a decent chance in their lives, than
one is either psychotic, sociopathic, or simply a worthless human being happily smug about what they’ve got and unable to care for anyone but their immediate companions.
Duh bdaman has a new strategy.
reprehensible. he should marry pat robertson or something.
BeTheMann,
That was a great example of a troll-like comment.
First, it is proper for the state to intervene on behalf of the defenseless, i.e. children
Second, I think providing the necesities of life for a child(food, water, clothing, shelter, and some supervision)if a pretty good criteria to judge whether a child is being taken care of.
Third, I am not denying you your rights. If taxes went down after the restriction of welfare, you would be free to use your money in support of whatever charity you like. When you force other people to pay for such ventures, you are intruding upon their rights to fruit of their labor.
Fourth, I believe as long as a child NEEDS the mother to survive, the decision of whether to support that life is her choice.