But who is willing to make the hard decision?

Posted: July 15, 2008 in Politics

Obama at his recent appearance before the NAACP.

He added: “I know some say I’ve been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I’m not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch—none of it will make any difference if we don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives.” (source)

Obama makes a good point here that has been made many times before by others. However at some point one has to ask “Who is going to make the hard decision to stop the cycle from the government’s end?” In other words, if 10-point plans are useless without folks exercising some level of personal responsibility, who in government is going to stop funding programs that historically yield mediocre results at the risk of being seen as insensitive or mean? Looking at the current choices, neither one has the pair.

I guess to me it is best left unsaid if you are not willing to take the political risk and stop the cycle.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. J says:

    Whoever wrote the above comment about stopping the government is #1 in my book! Good job for “getting it.”

    The government unless it hears from the people how destructive and soulless welfare and its other cousins, WIC etc are, KNOWS THAT TO KEEP YOU HOOKED keeps them in power.

    Its up to us people to say “You stereotype us by telling the world we want to be on welfare system but its you, the government that keeps feedig it to us.”

    We will take our responsibility part seriously as Obama has stated but stop feeding us YOUR MONEY LINE ADDICTION!!

  2. DarkStar says:

    Just because it’s available, it doesn’t mean people have to use it.

    The underlying theme to your post is people are weak and/or lazy.

  3. Duane says:

    The underlying theme to your post is people are weak and/or lazy.

    Yep! On both ends–starting with the two mannequins running for president.

  4. Wizz says:

    The programs (especially the ones mentioned in the earlier comment) are there to help people get on their feet or get through a hard time or go to college or whatever.. There are people in most of our families that have used them as just that, and have successfully moved on to be very successful. There are others who have abused them. Why would you take them away from the people who have/will use them responsibly to make their lives better.

  5. Duane says:

    Here is what I said in the actual post-

    “who in government is going to stop funding programs that historically yield mediocre results “

    Whether or not that covers things like WIC (as mentioned in J’s comment), you would have to look on the local level. Opening up our welfare system in general to non-citizens places a strain on system that is designed for what you described.

    I’ve also talked about city/state operated hospitals that have a long history of failing the community. Why do we have to wait decades for local politicians to finally decide to shut down bad hospitals?

    Let’s not forget about schools. While I am disagree with some of NCLB, I do agree with it premise that some central line of demarcation needs to be established in order to weed out historically poor performing schools. There are plenty of others I could mention, but I think the point has been made.

    Lastly, cutting government funding does not end to that form of benevolence. The non-profit sector has been doing it for years via private donations(no doubt having the tax-exempt status has greatly helped).

    Obama is doing nothing more here than stating the obvious. Of course a program can only be effective if the people it serves are willing to do their part. But what happens when they don’t do their part? Since he is acknowledging that this problem exists, what has he done to weed out offending social programs that historically produce mediocre or no results?

  6. Wizz says:

    I have read and heard more than once Obama state the very idea you just raised. He has said that democrats have to be able to admit when something isn’t working we have to move on to something else. And he has done so talking directly to and about democrats usually when referring to the fact that republicans can have good ideas too. As for the specific issues/programs you have a problem with, (as GWB would say) no one has a magic wand to fix all the issues with all of them tomorrow.

    As for NCLB… I don’t think you will find many people who will disagree with the premise. It was worked on by both some of the most liberal and some of the most conservative members of congress… The problem that most democrats complain about is if you acknowledge that it will cost X amount of dollars, and agree to federally give X amount of dollars, then why would you expect the same results if you only give half of X amount of dollars.

  7. Duane says:

    He has said that democrats have to be able to admit when something isn’t working we have to move on to something else.

    Perhaps you did not read what I asked previously–

    …what has he done to weed out offending social programs that historically produce mediocre or no results?

    Again, acknowledging it one thing, pushing forth policy to correct the problem is something totally different. Sounds good, but he is not the first politician who has stated the obvious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s