In a previous post, I derided the widespread notion among Republicans that Democrats will work to try to praise and promote the weakest Republican candidates.
That doesn’t mean it never happens.
Today, a couple of young SC Democratic wise guys have been having fun with Herman Cain’s rise in the polls. First, Lachlan McIntosh Tweeted this:
Herman Can for President? Where do we donate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmdexAKLuw New SC Forward Progress video
Then, Tyler Jones echoed that on Facebook…
Related Posts
By the way — you’ll see on my home page that I subbed out my beach header picture, which was a little out of season, with one of Rick Perry — who, it occurs to me, may also be out of season.
But I haven’t been to any events where I could get a picture of Herman Cain yet. Sorry.
One line of thinking is that if someone like Herman Cain could actually ever get the GOP nomination, it would be a nightmare scenario for Democrats. Someone with Cain’s outsider background would have tremendous appeal to independent voters – even if they don’t agree with every single thing he is saying. We know that guys like Cain just don’t win major party nominations -the last time someone who never held elected office was nominated by either major party was 1952, and that was General Eisenhower. Cain as the GOP nominee would be analogous to if Ross Perot had been the nominee of a major party in 1992 instead of running as an independent – the Perot vote plus the GOP vote in 1992 would have been 57%.
Cain would be Obama’s biggest nightmare, a black man vs. a black man. There goes at least 50% of his guaranteed voter.
I don’t understand why Ron Paul isn’t raising more eyebrows.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-droopy-eyebrow-prompts-suspicion-184456720.html
Given that lots of people who live at or below the poverty level are working poor, someone should (publicly) do the arithmetic for his 9-9-9 idea. What that would do to the working poor is hardly short of horrific–and I’m not using that word as a hyperbole; do the math yourself, and you’ll see. I can see unintended results from that idea that I don’t really want to think about.
I’d like to see more analysis of 9-9-9 to see if it really is revenue neutral as Mr. Cain claims. I’ve seen a few off-the-cuff suggestions that it can’t possibly be but some hard facts on that one simple question need to be thoroughly vetted before we get into the winners/losers issues. ANY tax plan MUST start with the premise that it’s revenue neutral first then if we need more or less revenue tweak it accordingly.
Of the millions of people “affected” by the 9-9-9 idea, I wonder how many of those are able bodied citizens who could work if they chose to. This country coddles far too many people, why do we need to continue providing Section 8 housing to people who could get off the couch and at minimum volunteer somewhere if not work. When one person living in an apartment pays $1000/month and her neighbor pays $30/month for herself and her 6 illegitimate children all with different fathers. Welfare was supposed to have a time limit, but there are still people on welfare who were on welfare a decade ago. I and many others are tired of paying our bills along with paying theirs. This country would become a stronger country if we went away from handouts and more toward Darwin. You don’t work, you don’t contribute to society, you don’t eat and neither do your kids.
Stephen I think you’re right. And we should go kick a few puppies while we’re at it.
@bud
If we cut military spending significantly, Cain’s tax plan wouldn’t have to be revenue neutral.
Its not revenue anyway – it’s taxes taken from other people’s revenues.
@bud – Why would you kick puppies? Do those puppies live off of my tax dollars or my donations to the shelter?
Most dogs are more than willing to work for their food and shelter.
@Steven Davis–
Coddling able-bodied people? Seriously? Are you familiar with the terms of welfare reform? Unemployment compensation?
Your facts are simply not correct.
Now food stamps and Section 8 housing: I want to feed and house children regardless of their parents’ marital status. That’s not “welfare”– food stamps and subsidized housing are what a civilized ought to provide, at a bare minimum for all children.
Who is going to mind the children while this mother “volunteers”?
You really want to starve the children?
@Karen M
Religions, mainstream and departures recognized by the IRS as legitimate (such as atheists, satanists, etc.) which claim exemption from income or local property taxation should have to compete with one another to earn those exemptions.
Suppose we let each denomination identify and help the most deserving among its flock.
Word would soon spread as to which gives away the most with the easiest validation procedure. To them will flock the undeserving and lazy. Soon there should be fewer really deserving souls without assistance.
Obviously, the assistance of last resort would still come from our inept government. But, as someone previously noted, government aid should be temporary. It would help the downtrodden until they had selected their religious preference, or lack thereof, for a generous 48 months.
Such a program would unmask too much political fraud, waste and abuse to ever win approval of our politicians.
Alternatively then, taxpayers should be able to stipulate on our annual tax returns which non-profit federal grant recipients we do not want our taxes to fund. Those in the top 25 of taxpayer choices would then be unfunded for the coming year.
Steven, how many of these women-living-on-welfare-with-6-illegitimate-children do you know? Can you point one out to me so I can talk to her, and check out her situation for myself? You’re talking about many people who do this; surely you must be able to identify a few personally. Many of those at are below the poverty level are working poor; and they work hard, struggling to make ends meet. And yes I can introduce you to a few.
@Karen McLeod and Steven
Both of you are absolutely correct. I know from personal experience and exposure that each of you has a legitimate point.
When my former company was doing a renovation of a major HUD project in another city in another time, we had to work closely with most of the residents on a daily basis. We come to know many of the families and the children. We also come to know the administrators of the housing program and learned some facts that were very disturbing.
First of all, there were all too many single mothers whose husbands had abandoned the family and they were left to provide the best they could. Some worked two or three jobs and earned as much as they could but still had to depend on public assistance to make ends meet. Many of them wanted nothing more than to be able to provide without government assistance but were unable to do so. As a general but not a hard rule, they were the ones who did everything they could to educate their children and instill in them a desire to do better. Conversely, there were just as many, if not more who did nothing but have children by one or more fathers who did not live in the home because of the way the system is run. They did lie around the house all day and did nothing to help improve their lot in life or discourage their children from doing the same thing. There were some households where there were two and three generations of welfare dependents, carrying on the tradition. Unfortunate but true.
The great shock came when an elder who was in charge was overheard advising a single mother on how many children she could have, how much she would receive for each one and that she couldn’t allow the father(s) to live under the same roof. It was not a misunderstanding either. He was ENCOURAGING her to have more children.
Another little unknown fact emerged as well. When a HUD project falls under a certain occupancy percentage, they move residents from one that is overcrowded to one that needs additional residents. It is all about the funding and finances.
Yes, both sides have legitimate points and there is truth on both sides. However, it is not all one way or the other and never will be. What is sad and heartbreaking is the fate of the innocent who never asked to become a pawn in a socio-political debate over personal responsibility, trying to find a job when none exists, being held accountable because some adults game the system for personal gain, financial or influence, or whatever. The innocents who enjoy life as a child but become an adult whose life is absolutely affected by his or her surroundings and influences as they grow up.
I am talking about the kids who are born into and grow up in such an environment.
They are the victims and if any one of the critics or advocates actually spent as much time with them as they do bitching and complaining about each other’s ideological or political position, maybe the cycle could be broken for some who in turn could do the same for others. For the majority of the kids raised in these circumstances, it is all they know and until they are reached and the chain is broken, it will continue. For the uninformed, race is no longer a major factor. It infects and affects all equally.
‘This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom…”
Charles Dickens from “A Christmas Carol”. It might be a good idea for us to read Dickens’ life story and how his experiences in his youth had a life changing impact on his later life and career. We might see a parallel to current events to some degree.
A so-called “bleeding heart” or a “miserly heart” will never solve one damn thing until the ignorance of the mind and soul are addressed first. Some of the most educated and prosperous people I know on both sides of the aisle are just as ignorant as the poorest of the poor and least educated, an observation based on spending time in both houses.
For a good read on the subject, go to the following link.
http://static.newrules.org/voice2004/welfare/index.html
Bart, St. Lawrence place helps house people who would otherwise be homeless while training them in the skills they will need to become self sustaining (eg. nutrition, money management, job applications, etc).
Meanwhile, I had thought that we’d eliminated indefinite welfare back in the Clinton era. I know that we still give food stamps (those kids still need fed, no matter how indolent or insoucient their parent(s) may be) but last time I checked those stamps did not pay other bills, nor did they provide enough to encourage anyone to have another kid just to get more stamps. Meanwhile, there are mothers who, because they were abandoned by the father(s), have a choice of caring for their kids or holding down one or more jobs. I don’t know many places that provide day care to the indigent for free. It’s a nasty state to be in. If they get a job, it usually means less money, and no care for the kids.
I recognize that there are always those who game the system, but our efforts should be directed at closing the loopholes, and prosecuting those that are cheating, rather than adding to the hopelessness of those who truly need help. And Bart, I certainly think we need to find a way to get to those children early, to provide them with the tools they need to break out of poverty. So many of those skills are learned so very early,before 6. Those of us smart enough to have chosen good parents learned them before we were old enough to cross the sidewalk without holding mama’s hand. Here in good old SC we’re fighting having early childhood preschool, even though it’s one of the best investments a society can make, precisely because it targets those very young children when they are most able to learn basic skills such as paying attention, taking turns,and feeling empathy toward others.
[like] what Karen said.
One more piece of the puzzle–when I represented juveniles, the number of mothers who were under 14, some of whom had more than one kid already, suggests that we adults are not doing enough to avert this situation. Many, if not most, of these girls’ mothers had had them when they were under 14, as well. Grandmothers of 13 year olds, who were in their early 30s–quite common. For these people, the system is broken and fingerpointing and demanding responsibility and bootstrapping is pointless. It will take money to fund the services that might break the cycle–starting with free, quality child care and sex ed that isn’t just abstinence!
Would you agree, Kathryn, that one thing that is desperately needed is schooling, mentoring, and counseling to target the young girls before they are teens to protect them and foster in them a knowledge that they are worth more than a guy’s temporary attention. They need to know that they can get somewhere on their own, and become something more than a ‘baby mama’.
@Katherine/Karen
How can you just so easily remove responsibility from the parents/grandparents in these cases? You both are so quick to shift the responsibility to the faceless government entity that will somehow cure all their ills.
There has to be some give-and-take here – tying payments to unwed mothers to remaining in school and NOT having additional children… I mean, if you get a check for baby #1, and baby #2, why stop there?
We need an incentive based system not a handout system. Let these unwed mothers go their local communities (churches, charities) for support. Perhaps a little bit of humility and recognition that their behavior is a drain on society is required. Knowing that you have to ask for help will break the cycle quicker than knowing a check is waiting for you when you screw up repeatedly.
Who is easily removing responsibility? You can’t get blood out of a turnip.
What if they have additional children anyway–we starve the children? How is that fair to the innocent children? How does going to school hungry help them prepare for anything else?
Local churches, etc., are already stretched to the max.
@Karen – “They need to know that they can get somewhere on their own, and become something more than a ‘baby mama’.”
The term your looking for is “mother”. If the mother of these girls don’t care, just as the fathers of these “baby daddy”s doesn’t care why should taxpayers foot their bills? And in many cases, generation after generation.
Why are responsible people expected to take care of the people who are irresponsible?