Professional Soldiers ® - South Carolina Lt. Gov. Under Fire for Comparing Welfare Users to Stray Animals

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - South Carolina Lt. Gov. Under Fire for Comparing Welfare Users to Stray Animals (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27372)

South Carolina Lt. Gov. Under Fire for Comparing Welfare Users to Stray Animals

I haven't been a big fan of our Lt Gov, not because of anything he's done in public but some things he's done in private....however he's growing on me with this kind of thinking.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ts-controversy

Quote:

The lieutenant governor of South Carolina is taking heat for comparing people on government assistance to "stray animals" and saying the government should stop "feeding" welfare recipients who do not meet certain requirements because "they breed."

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, a Republican, was arguing for fundamental changes to welfare to break the "cycle of dependency" at a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn, S.C., on Friday, when he said:

"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," Bauer said, "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."

The remarks set off a firestorm in the Palmetto State. "Everyone should be offended at the comparison of our school children to stray animals," House Democratic Leader Harry Ott said in a statement released over the weekend. "Mr. Bauer should immediately apologize to the people of South Carolina for these remarks."

Bruce Ransom, a political science professor at Clemson University's Strom Thurmond Institute, called the comments "shocking" and said they do a disservice to the thousands of welfare recipients who are in dire need of government help.

"There are many people who legitimately need that assistance," Ransom told FoxNews.com. "He's not only saying that they (welfare recipients) are dependent, but that they're undeserving."

While Bauer raised a "legitimate argument," Ransom said, "he didn't need to compare those individuals to stray animals."

"The way he framed his points was terrible," he said.

In an interview with FoxNews.com, Bauer, a second-term lieutenant governor who is running to succeed Gov. Mark Sanford in November, said he didn't intend to offend anyone. But he acknowledged he could have found better words to convey his meaning.

"The metaphor I used was well-intended," he said, "Will I use it again? No. Do I wish I had used a better one? You betcha I do."

Bauer has called for welfare recipients to receive mandatory drug tests and to attend parent-teacher conferences if they have children in school. Parents whose children benefit from subsidized school lunches should stop receiving government assistance if they fail to attend such meetings, he says.

The lieutenant governor said he intended in his remarks to stress the need to "break cycles of dependency." He said he was approached afterward by a black minister who asked him to he deliver the same speech at his church.

"He said 'you are right on the money,'" Bauer told FoxNews.com. "This was a diverse crowd and nobody there had a problem with the message.

"We've got to really look at every dollar we're spending. A hand-out is basically relief without any demand for change," he said.

Bauer also addressed public criticism of his remarks in a posting on his Facebook page Saturday.

"At a forum this week, I spoke out in favor of finding ways to break the government's cycle of handouts and dependency," Bauer wrote. "I believe government is 'breeding a culture of dependency' which has grown out of control, and frankly, amounts to little more than socialism, paid for by hard-working, tax-paying families."

"I feel strongly that we can and should help our neighbors who are truly needy," he added, "However, there's a big difference between being truly needy and truly lazy."

Bauer wrote that he will continue to push for such requirements even if they are perceived as "politically incorrect" by the media.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that roughly 15 percent of South Carolinians live below the poverty line. As of October 2009, about 20,648 South Carolina families were listed as welfare recipients -- totaling $3,979,701 in government assistance, according to the South Carolina's Department of Social Services. That figure is an increase from 2008, when 16,382 were listed as receiving cash assistance from the government.

The Associated Press reported that Bauer, who comes from working-class roots and who grew up in a single-parent household, benefited from subsidized school lunches himself.

Bauer was sworn in as South Carolina's lieutenant governor in 2003 after having served in the state Senate for four years.

Quote:

Bauer has called for welfare recipients to receive mandatory drug tests

I'd be willing to be that the money that the state pays for the tests will be less than the money they pay to the ones on drugs and actually save them money.

Will it happen? Probably not.

The funny/sad fact is, most of the recipients don't even have a clue who he is or that something possibly derogatory was said about them....i mean one, it was in a town hall meeting, two it's in the news. Something they typically don't do. If it's not on MTV/VH1/BET, TMZ, etc... they miss it.

I agree about the fact that parent(s) should be made to attend PTC/PTA meetings if their children are receiving free or reduced meals. Kids dont make the cut, the parents get cut from welfare too. The parents should also be subject to drug testing. Pop hot, you get maybe one more chance, the next time you will have a 5 year wait period or something before receiving welfare again.

Im not a math person, but $4 million divided by 21k people = $190.9989809. Am i missing it?

I agree.

He insulted stray animals who have no ability to think or to restrain themselves from procreating under inappropriate circumstances.

Shame on him.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 311027)

I agree.

He insulted stray animals who have no ability to think or to restrain themselves from procreating under inappropriate circumstances.

Shame on him.

TR

Excellent observation....:D

Yet another political windsock wavering in the hot winds of whimsical voter sensitivity and making headlines on a slow news day...SSDD.

And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

So... was his key mistake publicly acknowledging the American welfare state or acknowledging that free shit attracts stray dogs?

Quote:

...key mistake...

Opening his mouth and speaking in a forum which offered no opportunities for any sort of waffle-bility - a rookie mistake for a {insert adjective of choice} of his stature.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 311027)

I agree.

He insulted stray animals who have no ability to think or to restrain themselves from procreating under inappropriate circumstances.

Shame on him.

TR

Absolutely...........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

I don't understand what all the hoopla is about. He only said what most of us think. Welfare is a vicious cycle, it produces more people to live off the government. Like all the other systems that the wonderful Roosevelt put into place, its needs to be reformed. The government needs something in return from the receipent who is receiving welfare benefits. It needs to teach self reliance. Churches who have a welfare system do that, why can't the government. I hate lazy, unmotivated, feel like they are entitled to something people. They are worthless and a sore to our society.

The emperors new clothes...

...he simply identified that the emperors was naked. In todays society you aren't allowed to 'out the emperor'

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksgbobo (Post 311356)

I don't understand what all the hoopla is about. He only said what most of us think.

<<SNIP>>

I hate lazy, unmotivated, feel like they are entitled to something people. They are worthless and a sore to our society.

Regardless of what one may think of Americans who receive entitlements, these Americans can still vote.

Is calling potential voters names and comparing them to animals a good political tactic?

Mr. Bauer made a choice to place his personal views ahead of good judgment. So instead of discussing the propriety of welfare reform, the discussion is about his choice of words.

Is that really the type of politician one wants to support? What happens when Mr. Bauer indulges his personal views and one doesn't agree with what he says?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 311423)

...Is calling potential voters names and comparing them to animals a good political tactic?

So then he should say whats politically expedient instead of stating things as they are or stating how he truly feels? I would rather politicians say whats on their mind(s) as well as on many of ours. Not a big fan of my Lt Gov, however he hit the nail on the head.

The federal govt, as well as state govt needs to stop giving to those who WONT do for themselves.

Welfare should be ceased until it can be reformed to help those in need instead of those in want.

Is it what you say or how you say it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric (Post 311427)

Surgicalcric--

As your comment points out, it will be up to each voter to answer the question for himself.

In my opinion, there does not have to be a distinction between a politician saying what is politically expedient and what reflects his personal views. The two are not mutually exclusive categories.

In this case, the controversy Mr. Bauer decided to start is receiving national attention. Democrats are pointing at Mr. Bauer as the epitome of the Republican Party. And, at least for now, lost in the din is a pretty good argument for welfare reform.

All for what? Unintentionally, the Fox News report provides a telling insight into Mr. Bauer's way of thinking. He said:

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. ...

What this statement says is that, as an educated adult with a career in public service and access to data and studies on welfare and welfare recipients, Mr. Bauer's policy analysis centers around what he heard as a "small child" from his grandmother who "was not a highly educated woman." IMO, this statement does not inspire confidence in the man's expertise.

Then he offered this ironic remark.

Quote:

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.

This comment raises immediately the question: Who are "they" and what don't they know? Those who agree with Mr. Bauer are quick to conclude that "they" are the malingerers who stay on the dole and live beyond their means by having more children. Yet, consider the following piece of information.

Quote:

The Associated Press reported that Bauer, who comes from working-class roots and who grew up in a single-parent household, benefited from subsidized school lunches himself.

Since Mr. Bauer is the one who raised the issue of his family history by referencing his grandmother, it is not an idle exercise to re-think who he meant when he said "they." Are "they" just today's malingerers or do "they" also include his parents who, by their choices, placed Mr. Bauer in the position of being raised in a single parent home and of needing public assistance to have enough to eat at school? While neither of these facts are inherently shameful, it seems that Mr. Bauer may not agree. One is inclined to wonder why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 311440)

...In my opinion, there does not have to be a distinction between a politician saying what is politically expedient and what reflects his personal views. The two are not mutually exclusive categories.

While not mutually exclusive in theory, they are in practice more often than not.

Quote:

...In this case, the controversy Mr. Bauer decided to start is receiving national attention. Democrats are pointing at Mr. Bauer as the epitome of the Republican Party. And, at least for now, lost in the din is a pretty good argument for welfare reform...

He didnt start the issue, he is just bringing it to the forefront.

Do you honestly believe someone using welfare, with no desire to get off the Govt's tit, is going to vote for someone who wants to eliminate the chance of them making a living without working in the first place?

When was the last time ANYONE was serious about welfare reform? Welfare is nothing more than a tool used by the left to enslave voters, much like immigration.

Quote:

...He said:What this statement says is that, as an educated adult with a career in public service and access to data and studies on welfare and welfare recipients, Mr. Bauer's policy analysis centers around what he heard as a "small child" from his grandmother who "was not a highly educated woman." IMO, this statement does not inspire confidence in the man's expertise....

Why? Surely you are not suggesting it necessary for a person to be "highly educated" to have a formed opinion or make accurate comparisons or be intelligent? He was speaking in terms the crowd could understand and appreciate and associate with.

Quote:

...Then he offered this ironic remark.This comment raises immediately the question: Who are "they" and what don't they know?

"They", and I think you know who "they" is referring to, are the people having children they cant feed -one after the other without aid, eating on food stamps, living in section 8/subsidized housing, draw unemployment for years/generations, and/or put kids in govt daycare when they have no job. Yet they always seem to find the money to drive an Escalade, Tahoe, BMW, Benz, or (insert other pricey car/truck here), have a thousand dollar stereo or or a plasma screen TV, buy/sell drugs, go clubbing, etc...

However, I disagree with his idea that "they" dont know better. They know as long as they continue to doff off kids the govt will take care of them and thereby perpetuate the cycle...

And as long as the system pays for the reelection of politicians welfare will remain reform-less and the govt will continue to take from what I earn and give to those who would gladly not earn a thing.