Letters: State of nation not progressives’ fault

In the letter from Noralee Patton under the heading “Progressivism hurting United States,” she states that progressives have been changing this country for about 100 years and have tried to change our Constitution.

She is basing her opinions on the movie “2016” and believes all the anti-Obama misinformation, propaganda and lies put forth in that movie. She blames all the country’s ills on Democratic presidents, specifically stating that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were responsible for the housing debacle.

I would recommend that rather than base her views on that biased movie that she do a little research.

She will find that the housing debacle was not merely the fault of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, but through deregulation of the banking and financial systems which started with Jimmy Carter and continued in Ronald Reagan’s administration, Clinton’s administration and the George W. Bush administration.

These deregulations were the reason financial institutions, which were not regulated, went wild and took extremely major risks thereby causing the 2008 financial crisis.

I would suggest that since Patton relies on movies to obtain her information that she check out two movies: “Inside Job” and “Too Big to Fail,” which state the truth of the financial meltdown, where the fault lies and how serious it was.

The big joke in Patton’s letter is that she states Lyndon Baines Johnson destroyed the American black family with his “War On Poverty.”

I doubt very seriously that the American black community would agree with her summation of the situation.

Apparently she was either not yet born or is too young to remember the ’60s, when African-American citizens had very few rights, were grossly mistreated and basically lived in poverty; therefore, Lyndon Johnson’s “War On Poverty” was a humane act.

Also, I doubt that the senior citizens, who are dependent on Social Security for their livelihood and Medicare to take care of their health needs, would agree that progressivism has hurt the United States.

What has hurt the United States is the greediness that has taken over our political and financial systems.

Gerri Goodin

retired hospital employee

Denham Springs

Comments

1) Comment by ScotB - 22/09/2012

I certainly don't blame the poor for the world's problems. I also don't credit government with solving the problems of the poor, either. Since President Johnson launched his war on poverty, we have spent over $16 trillion dollars (in inflation adjusted dollars) on the war on poverty, yet the percent of Americans in poverty is higher today than when Johnson was president. A free public education is offered to all citizens, yet the high school drop out rate approaches 50% for some demographics. Over 70% of children born to single mothers. Fatherless children. These are the escalating causes of poverty that government cannot solve. You cannot stop people being the victim of the consequences of making terrible life changing choices. I truly wish it were otherwise.

2) Comment by Spudaroonski - 21/09/2012

The financial crisis cost taxpayers $12.8 trillion, according to the group Better Markets, almost all of it flowing to Wall Street. It's not the poor, disabled or elderly who caused the financial crisis. It's not the teachers, policemen and firemen who are bankrupting this country like so many of you conservative commenters seem to believe. You really should educate yourselves and learn where to direct your rage and anger. I know it's easy to blame the poor for all the problems in the world and I know it makes you feel superior but it's just lazy on your part. The real welfare queens wear 5,000 dollar suits and belong to country clubs where you wouldn't be allowed to caddy in or shine shoes. And if it's really welfare that has you all worked up then try concentrating on all the corporate welfare going on. That's where the big money is.

3) Comment by Whatnow - 21/09/2012

DMJ, who says that conservatives want to neglect the truly needy at all? That is so untrue, and it's not so cut and dry. It depends on who you mean by the truly needy, too. Do you honestly think it's fair to for hard working man and woman working two jobs, with a family who lives payday to payday, with no extras, to not be concerned when he has to pay taxes to provide for thousands of women who has two, three or four kids by different men, who she never married, does not get child support, and didn't care to think about that when she didn't used those free BC pills or free condoms, who is on welfare, food stamps that can buy the type of food that his family could never afford, Medicaid, free phones, low income housing, and free education that she will never use, but he can't afford for his own kids and has to get loans for their education that they are desperate for while paying full price for everything that these women get for "free"? When this is done by thousands upon thousands of women it's just insane. And what about all the able bodied men who refuse to work? Why are they even considered for Welfare and other programs? When does that taxpaying man get a break? When does the cycle of generations of poor living like this stop? Can't the cycle be broken some way? Why is it made so easy to live that way? These people aren't needy. They are leeches. They are given every opportunity to break the cycle. But, they choose not to. They may have to work at it. There are more gaming the system than not and they are the ones that take away from the truly needy. Can't that fraud and breaking the cycle become a top priority? Our government can't control the abuse, fraud and theft in the programs that we have for the truly needy now and the Dems just want to add more programs, subsets of programs, etc. DMJ, just look at all the new disability claims from people who have now lost their jobs. They weren't disabled before. Why were they even considered for disability? Were that many people working with hidden disabilities? Can't be. Have the guidelines changed in the past couple of years? This seems to me to be taking away from the truly disabled. Fix what is broken and more funds will be there. The government is at fault also with overpayments, mistaken payments, mistakes that a private worker would be fired for. There is a lot of incompetence there. I'm really trying here to understand why it is considered by the left as uncaring, or racist or greedy on the conservatives part and the problem is escalating. Something has to give. What to do is right.

4) Comment by The_Host - 21/09/2012

So lets make is about choice then shall we. Put all the welfare programs on our tax returns and if we want to pay for them we check the box and pay the corresponding %. Then we will see how generous liberals really are when it is just their money. We certainly can't go on allowing people to game the system. Or is $16 Trillion in debt not enough yet? The system IS the problem. It does not work and it barely works for those that actually really need it. No entity can be bleed by leeches for all eternity and not succumb to the Host/Parasite end game. Look at what Romney just released for his taxes this year. You could confiscate every last dime that he made and it wouldn't even cover the bill for the extra money they just put on all the food stamp cards in a few parishes for people already on food stamps full time. There is never going to be enough money so if you want to have any sort of program at all you better run it tight and lean otherwise you are just like a business being ripped off for more than you make. Bankrupt!

5) Comment by DMJ - 21/09/2012

I guess it comes down to a choice... Do we neglect those that truly need help in order not to help the ones gaming the system? Or do we accept the fact that some will game the system that's set up to help those truly in need. Conservatives choose the former; liberals choose the latter. Both argue that the other's approach has hidden, residual costs. Both are right. What to do?

6) Comment by nimby? - 21/09/2012

doing nothing might achieve the same results , at no cost . workfare or education with incentives , consequences aimed at results . sometimes a "lack of motivation" requires a gentle nudge , or a swift kick in the rear . idle threats are not working , removal of services will , period . paying people not to work , when they can , when so much needs to be done doesn't make any sense ....

7) Comment by DMJ - 21/09/2012

For the sake of argument, let's say you guys are right.... What's the alternative? Do nothing? I don't think most people could do that in good consciense. Plus, you're omitting a lot of factors, namely drugs (and the war on them), guns, the for-profit prison industry, to name a few.

8) Comment by nimby? - 21/09/2012

programs designed with the best of intentions are easily taken advantage of and the most corrupted ...

9) Comment by InPVille - 21/09/2012

The Pattern: 1.) A situation exists with negative social consequences which progressives seek to eliminate or significantly reduce. 2.) Progressives advocate for Policy "A" which they claim will, if implemented, lead to improved result "B". 3.) The progressive policy is implemented but the result is detrimental "C". 4.) Those who claim the detrimental result "C" was caused by Policy "A" are dismissed as ignoring claimed complicating factors. At the same time no burden of proof is placed on progressives to show why what was so confidently predicted would result in improvement had not produced the opposite. 5.) It is claimed that inadequate funding had been applied to achieving Result "B" as the reason the policy failed. 6.) Advocacy begins to obtain additional funding for Policy "A".

10) Comment by InPVille - 21/09/2012

The War On Poverty: 1.) The dependency created by poverty is a social problem and some action by government needs to be formulated to improve the rate by which poverty and dependence has been declining in recent decades. The rate is too slow and people suffer. 2.) The Economic Opportunity Act is passed in 1964 creating the Office by that name. 3.) The trend of reduction in of those in poverty reverses itself as the numbers of people dependent on federal assistance instead of declining even faster than before actually begins to increase. [[ The number of people on Public Assistance more than doubled between 1960 and 1977. The dollar value of public housing rose almost 5-fold in a decade. Spending on food stamps increased ten-fold. As a percentage of GNP the spending increased from 8% in 1960 to 16% by 1974. ]] 4.) That the anti-poverty program completely failed at achieving the original goal was completely ignored. Those who pointed out the program's failure were denounced as shortsighted and simplistic. The goal post was changed to being whether or not it could be claimed there were those who personally benefited from the program and found it helpful. The program was a "clear, steady trend away from the majority's long and shameful disregard of the other, hidden America of hard-core hopelessness." - Hodding Carter III in the Wall Street Journal 8/11/1983, page 21.

11) Comment by ScotB - 21/09/2012

In 1960, 20% of black children were born to a single mother. Today, over 70% are born to single mothers. This is the statistic often cited when discussing how welfare has caused the disintegration of the black family. A single mother was entitled to benefits and a married mother wasn't it. The way the system was structured had a debilitating impact on the black community in that it favored fatherless children and additional births to mothers who couldn't really afford additional children. It still is poorly structured today. In addition to the problems already discussed, it punishes those who are trying to work their way back into the workforce by cutting their benefits to the point that their is no advantage to additional work. Government social intervention programs are littered with results that can best be described as the result of "The Law of Unintended Consequences". The Baton Rouge Business Report has an article about Judge Parker's desegregation ruling (intended to benefit black students) and how it impacted East Baton Rouge Parish and its school system.

12) Comment by 8point6 - 20/09/2012

"Letters: State of nation not progressives’ fault" Of course, it's not! Try this: You might want to look farther than your nose. news.yahoo.com/tax-penalty-hit-nearly-6m-uninsured-people- 194442599.html Just one example of the "progressive" agenda....

13) Comment by DMJ - 20/09/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

14) Comment by nimby? - 20/09/2012

that we have come to expect and accept lies from our elected officials doesn't bode well for Americans and their future ....

15) Comment by Whatnow - 20/09/2012

Gerri Goodin, no one needs to watch movies to be anti-Obama. Reading his own novels, listening to his own words and watching his actions are enough. You can put another "BLAME" out there for Obama's failures by dissing a movie that people only go to see out of curiosity. This movie will not change their opinions. They had them before they watched it. Did you see the movie? Did you read his novels? Do you actually notice that he talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk? Have you seen his empty chair, I-pad leadership and foreign policy working? Has he tried to meet with Republican to talk? He doesn't even talk to his own party's Congressmen. Have you noticed all the crawfishing backups that he and his administration has had to do to cover his rear? For example, just saying one sentence to a plumber turned people off from from Obama a long time ago. He still believes that comment and we don't. It is a socialistic, progressive and Marxist view. You may argue that it's not what he meant, and taken out of context, but it was there for all to see and hear and we keep hearing it and seeing it with other speeches and actions. Was he lying when he said that comment to Joe the Plumber? His actions have proven that comment constantly. But, I guess we should just trust him instead of our lying eyes and ears.

16) Comment by nimby? - 20/09/2012

we live in a high tech world where education is the key to success . knowing this why would anyone choose to quit school ? progress is continued education , not giving up . still trying to understand the need to support those one/half , one third my age who are stronger , just as smart because of their life choices ....

17) Comment by ex-louisianian - 20/09/2012

"...they'll reap the benefits of the progressive accomplishments without batting an eye." Reminds me of the Tea Party idiots who hold up signs saying 'get your government out of my Medicare,' or who choose the VA instead of "best in the world" for-profit health care system whose premiums they can't possibly afford. But shamelessness is part and parcel of the American right -- remember that Ayn Rand was a Social Security recipient.

18) Comment by Attila - 20/09/2012

SS was never intended to be a persons sole means of support in their golden years. It was to be a supplement to any pension that the person may have and to their savings. Sadly people who rely only on SS are correct in that it is not enough to live on unless they made big bucks during their working lives. They have only themselves, in most cases to blame for that predicament. LBJ's Great Society boondoggle is still haunting us today. Untold trillions have been thrown down black hole, never to be seen again, and to no avail. There are still as many poor people today. All that progressivism has produced in the last 3 generations is more people who depend on the government for their livelihood. Liberals are about as progressive as cancer.

19) Comment by DMJ - 20/09/2012

Well-stated, Gerri. People love to hate on Progressives, but when it comes time for it, they'll reap the benefits of the progressive accomplishments without batting an eye. Hypocrites, the lot of 'em. And rgerald, she never said only Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act; she aid progressives did. You see....there was once a time when not all progressives were Democrats. Hard to believe, huh?

20) Comment by [e-mail] - 20/09/2012

I couldn't disagree more with the opinions expressed in Ms. Goodin's letter; there's a lot of disinformation out there and I see a lt of it in her remarks. Republicans passed the civil rights legislation, but Johnson's "War on Poverty" has a whole group of folks in the trick bag.

21) Comment by nimby? - 20/09/2012

progressive , to progress . 50 years later , same excuses . entering a 4th generation of underachievement . carry on ...

22) Comment by jdk944 - 20/09/2012

@Goodin, I agree with Ms. Patton's overall premise about progressives and it doesn't come from seeing some movie!! It comes from reviewing the last 100+ years of history and seeing how this country has veered away from it's foundational principles set in the constitution. But then those who are looking for a "hand out" will never see than because there view is clouded with their "free lunch" mentality, provided at the expense of those who contribute to society!!

23) Comment by InPVille - 20/09/2012

@Gerri Goodin: "Also, I doubt that the senior citizens, who are dependent on Social Security for their livelihood and Medicare to take care of their health needs, would agree that progressivism has hurt the United States." -[**]- I very much doubt the people working today paying into the Social Security and most particularly those who are a long way from reaching their retirement years would have a similar view as to how well the "progressive" idea of Social Security, as designed by our government, meets their needs. Today there are fewer than two people paying in the benefits for every person receiving Social Security Benefits. The number will continue to decline leaving an even larger amount of unfunded liability which will result either in much greater SSA tax payments, reduced SSA benefits, or both. To use the well known phrase, "The problem with progressive ideas is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money". There are similar problems with Medicare and the current administration's ACA as designed. The progressive entitlement society has resulted in the entire Western World becoming so heavily in debt that the whole economic/political system is a the point of collapse and with demographics trending down there are fewer and fewer working to support the entilement societies' house of cards. -[**]- Since the War on Poverty began the percentage of Americans in poverty until recently had remained about the same. In the past four years, given the fact that it is being reported that the average income of Americans has declined by about $4000 a year, the percentage of Americans in poverty has probably increased. -[**]- As for deregulation of housing mortgages, both parties participated in that. There are progressives on both sides of the political aisle in Washington. Anyone with basic math skills can figure out how much of a house note can be paid given other expenses and to allow a bit of wiggle room for the unexpected. Unfortunately too few people took the time to do it or lacked the necessary discipline to not pile on additional debt later. So most, not all(some suffered some personal disaster), were full participants in the folly. . . add $400 to have the latest Iphone, a couple of hundred for the latest pair of stylish tennis shoes, and on and on. . . A "you know who" and his money!

24) Comment by The_Host - 20/09/2012

The 60's was FIFTY years ago. Time to move on don't you think? Fifty years of special set asides and programs that continue to this day which incase no one has noticed are utter failures and a waste of money. We have more poor people than ever yet we spend more than ever on poor people. How is this possible unless the poor people don't see a reason to try harder since there are people willing to pay them to fail? Once a freebie is put in place try taking it away and see what happens. You will be called every name in the book including good old racist. I am for cutting welfare to everyone of every race. If I said lets cut the white people off first I would be called a racist for putting whitie at the front of the line! You just can't win with people that refuse to hold anyone accountable except those they expect to finance the whole pipe dream. Once some idiot politicians pass a new freebie it is considered a god given right after that as though it is in the Constitutions Bill of Rights. These are the people Romney was talking about HONESTLY in that video that will vote for the guy that wants bigger government and not him. The party that panders to the poor and sprinkles just enough of other peoples money on them to make sure they vote for them time after time. Not enough money to actually live well but just enough to make you think there is more where that came from, so long as you vote Democrat. I will agree with the greed comments but to say that all these programs haven't caused more problems than they solved is just lying to yourself.

25) Comment by dday198 - 20/09/2012

the woman wrote a Sarah Palin like letter. anyone could tell that she doesn't believe anything past one of the right-wing parrots

26) Comment by Bighug - 20/09/2012

It is obvious that most of today's politicians are more interested in their own advancement and re-election than the good of the country or state. The lies about Obama seem to have had the effect of moving him ahead in the polls. There was enough truth about his policies to cause many to vote against him, but the truth has been ignored in favor of the idiotic lies.