Free Money!

[Shawn Hennessy]

A buddy of mine sent this to me and I thought I'd share it with you all.

In 1927, a major unnamed hurricane struck the city of New Orleans. It was actually more powerful than Katrina. The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city.



Katrina missed it by 25 miles.



The interesting difference is the response the government gave in 1927 to those hurricane refugees, compared to the refugees of Katrina, er- I meant "survivors" ---(sorry Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).



How much aid did the government dispense at that time? Zero, nada, not one dime. And you know how much aid the army offered? The only aid from the army came in the form of loaning the city of New Orleans tents and camp stoves. Ironically, later, the army sued the city for reimbursement So what was the big difference here?



It was the attitude the people had towards the government at that time, compared to the attitude that Katrina's victims have. The 1927 "survivors" expected nothing from the government. 80 years ago, people understood that the government was there to "protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, Americans expect the government to "provide lfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a major difference. And now, a week later, when the government failed on all three levels of local, state, and federal to provide for their needs, Americans were sorely disappointed.



Reverend Jackson and reverend Sharpton spend their opportunities arguing about semantics."They shouldn't be called refugees, they should be called survivors" Unfortunately, they missed the boat. It was a perfect opportunity to deliver a very basic message to their people.



<ul>

<li>Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.

<li>Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.

<li>Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. Its free! 12 grades.

</ul>

And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. Its unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most of the "survivors".



A couple of other points should be brought to light. G. W. has asked the congress for 50 billion dollars worth of aid for the "survivors" and clean up of the city. Interesting isn't it? one million people displaced and out of work in that city, sitting all day in shelters, waiting for the next handout. Of course, the thought never occurred to anyone that just maybe, "hey, we should give all these folks jobs filling sand bags to plug the levees and clearing trees." (Wonder how many of them would want government aid if they had to work for it?)



And finally, they haven't hardly begun the task of picking up dead bodies, and already the finger pointing has started. The congressional hearings and probes will go forever. Millions will be spent on a wasted diatribe of a bipartisan "witch hunting expedition"- all of which will

be nonsense. If you're a democrat, you are going to blame the president. If you are a republican, you are going to blame the mayor and the governor. This is another case in point of how the government will once again fail its people, they could have spent the millions educating the poor and misplaced citizens of New Orleans so that they could go out and get a new and better life, instead of wasting it on useless blame investigations.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Very good points! Who is the author?

 

[Buck Henry]

80 years ago, people understood that the government was there to "protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, Americans expect the government to "provide lfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Oh man, could not have said it better myself. Thanks for sharing this, it gives me hope that there are still folks out there who get it.

 

[TrainTrac]

Here's another one worth sharing:

IS IT PERMISSIBLE?

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005



IS IT PERMISSIBLE?



Last week, President Bush promised the nation that the federal government will pay for most of the costs of repairing hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, adding, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again." There's no question that New Orleans and her sister Gulf Coast cities have been struck with a major disaster, but should our constitution become a part of the disaster? You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Let's look at it.



In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."



President Cleveland added, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."



President Cleveland vetoed hundreds of congressional spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." But Cleveland wasn't the only president who failed to see charity as a function of the federal government. In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."



In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn't have a right to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." A couple of years earlier, James Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."



Here's my question: Were the nation's founders, and some of their successors, callous and indifferent to human tragedy? Or, were they stupid and couldn't find the passages in the Constitution that authorized spending "on the objects of benevolence"?



Some people might say, "Aha! They forgot about the constitution's general welfare clause!"Here's what James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."



Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"



Don't get me wrong about this. I'm not being too cri

 

[Ben Poche]

any one need a job come to new orleans their are more high paying jobs now than before and no one wants to work due to free money.

 

[Fred]

Free money, :angry: So that's where all that money is going out of my paycheck. :angry:



Wait, then it's NOT free! I love having my hard-earned money taken from me to be handed out to able bodied, lazy, non-contributing slugs! :angry:

 

[Bill V]

Dive, in general I agree with that quote. However, there are two statements in there which contradict each other, and they come in immediate succession. In one bullet, it says, "...there is no reason for you to be uneducated. It's free!"--but just before that it says, "if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed". So which is it? Should people depend on that "free", government-provided education? Or should they skip it, because if they pursue it, they'll be sorely disappointed? The author really needs to make up their mind...

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

Bill,



It is a rant...I agree that there are some contradictions in the author's writing. However, the general gist of his/her message is why I bothered to post.



I agree that our society (especially the lifelong poor) feel that they are owed welfare, food stamps, free or lowcost housing, free transportation, etc. This is entitlement mentality. Those who support this by finding ways to fund existing programs and establishing new programs are enablers or socialists. Wealth redistributionists.



I grew up moderately poor. I got one pair of shoes each year. I had a pretty empty closet. Our heat was kept at 58 degrees in the winter time and we had to wear coats in the house and pile on the blankets. Yes, we had a house, but we were poor.



I went through public school (with some ridicule for being po), joined the Navy, went to school, bought my own home, cars, etc. My brother worked his way through college. We both make decent salaries, don't really have need for anything (we aren't lacking) but we aren't wealthy. We worked for it.



The message I posted is that ANYONE can make his/her way, building a good life for themselves if they just get off their asses and do it. It isn't easy, but it is doable.



How does someone living in utter poverty in New Orleans live with themselves, blaming a race of people and the Federal Governement that they don't have an opportunity to live a good life while thousands of Mexicans, Laotians, Cambodians, Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Somalians, etc. pour into this country and do so well? You don't think they experience racism along the way? You don't think they have a hard road to travel?



It isn't the Feds job to make sure that a good life is provided for you. I didn't get one handed to me.

 

[Fred]

Here! Here!

 

[Bill V]

Dive--Yes, I'm with you on all that. We're seeing eye-to-eye.



You got heat up to 58??? Man, I'm envious! In the central Wisconsin farmhouse I grew up in, none of the second floor (where all the kids' rooms were located) had heat of any kind! In the winter, the direction of the wind was checked each night, and the kid whose wall was exposed most to the wind got to have the family dog sleep in their bed for a bit more warmth. (No I'm not kidding.) So, from someone from the other side of the tracks, I'm just curious--what was it like growing up rich? :lol:

 

[TrainTrac]

Not only is the gov't supposed to provide us with free money, it would seem that we also have a "fundamental basic right" to free wi-fi internet access... At least in San Fransisco; the mayor thinks that wireless Internet service is a basic right.:lol: Now, by "basic right" that would mean that wireless internet service is right up there with the right to worship as you please and the right to free speech. Indeed, the right to wireless Internet service is right up there with the right to your life! I guess the Founding Fathers forgot about this one!



No person has to surrender either their time or their property in order for your right to free speech to be recognized and upheld. However, no one can be guaranteed a right to Internet service, health care, a job, a home or any of the other new acquired "rights" unless someone somewhere along the line gives up either their time (a portion of their life) or some of their property. The mayor of San Francisco, then, is stating that his subjects have a right to a portion of the lives and property of others.



What's next, handing out free laptops to everyone to go along with the free wi-fi???:huh: