Thursday, February 11, 2010

A fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals

In Colorado (where else?), the Democrats are expressing outrage over comments made by a conservative Republican on the floor of the state house on Monday.

State Representative Spencer Swalm stated the plain truth that people who don’t want to live in poverty, should stop having children out of wedlock. Common sense, right? Well maybe to you and to me, but the state's Democratic party went ape over the mere suggestion that single moms having kids that they cannot afford is a bad thing and leads to a life of poverty. It doesn't matter that the statistics on that issue are clear and uncontestable--Even the US Census Bureau reports that 43 percent of Colorado families living below the poverty level were headed by a married couple vs. Fifty-seven percent of families below that line that were single-parent families. And of all children living in single-parent homes, nearly a third lived in poverty. Only 8.6 percent of children in married couple families lived in poverty.

I mean, come on--it's not even something you can argue. Single-parent families may do quite well, but more of them do poorly than do families with two parents. That's just a fact.

“Don’t have kids out of wedlock,” said Swalm, R-Centennial from the House floor. “If you’re married, if at all possible, try to stay married. Those are ways to lift families out of poverty.”

In an interview afterward, Swalm pointed out that “intact families do better than dysfunctional or broken families”, but said he was not advocating that women stay in abusive marriages.

“Those children are almost guaranteed to be in poverty. You don’t want kids in poverty? Don’t have kids out of wedlock,” Swalm said. “Better yet, get a high school degree. That doesn’t cost a dime.”

Wow. Get and stay married, get a basic diploma, work. Such oppressive concepts. No wonder the Dems are outraged. It goes without saying that messages like this rock their party because impoverished people are a major bloc of their constituency. People who do well and earn money or own property naturally want to keep it so they tend to vote for the Republicans, who at least give lip-service to conservative principles like self-reliance and small government. Conversely, poor people, including people who don't work and who have lots of kids that they cannot afford, expect the government to take care of them, usually by taking the money and/or property from those who have it--typically the ones who stayed in school and worked hard and who didn't start popping out kids in their teen years.

This is why I think that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote. They have elected to become children of the state and children aren't supposed to have a say in how a household is run. If welfare recipients could not vote, many legislators who owe their seats to large numbers of non-working child-breeders in their districts might not be in office today and perhaps the government would more accurately reflect and work on behalf of the average American--the man or woman who gets up every day and puts in 40 hours or more each week to earn their own way.

Mind you, it's not cut-and-dried between the parties. There are a few conservative Democrats out there, and there are some scum-sucking liberal Republicans who like to ride on the Conservative Values float come election time but who still vote to give the store away to people who aren't putting anything in. I really don't care which party takes the lead so long as it's the most conservative one. And that's why come November, I'll be voting for and donating money to candidates who pledge or have demonstrated support for small government, pro-citizen-empowerment conservatism, regardless of their political affiliation. And if the GOP thinks that I'll support another John McCain, they're in for a rude awakening. I want a government that governs me the least and lets me keep what I earn. And I want more people like Spencer Swalm in office, because he seems to get that.

Go, Spencer, go!


  1. Good grief. If THAT bothers them, they are going to lose their minds when they see the proposed HB 2770 from Frank Antenori which happens to be GREAT. FINALLY, let's get back to the basics that made this country great and stop sucking up to the BS rhetoric from these liberal jackalopes.

  2. Oh, I love that guy's bill! Between him and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I'm ready to move to Arizona!

  3. Um, yeah... That get married and stay married thing? Harder than it looks.. And it does take two...

  4. I know that it takes two. (But if even one says "no"...) That's why I'm also in favor of stepping up child-support laws and collections so that deadbeat dads start losing assets or spending evenings and week-ends in jail until they pay up.
    Of course this also requires the woman to identify the baby daddy, and many women refuse to do so. Ideally, they'd be cut off from any benefits until they named the responsible guy.

  5. Good for this man for having the guts to say what so many of us know to be the truth. Baby momma's need to stop breeding! Plain and simple. Cause I know I am sure tired of my tax dollars going to pay for their brats.

  6. Interesting thought about denying the franchise to people on welfare. Wondering if the consequences would be a see-saw effect. When the welfare folks can't vote in their enablers, then the laws get changed to reduce welfare, taking them off the rolls long enough to restore the franchise, at which point do they vote their old friends back into power?

  7. Anonymous5:03 PM

    Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Angela McGlowan, Jesse Lee Peterson, and Star Parker have all strongly suggested that in order to stay out of poverty, people should get their diploma, get a job, get married, and do NOT have children out of wedlock.

    These six individuals are, in the words of Rev. Peterson, "black as the ace of spades." Yet, as much freaking horse sense as these guidelines are, to say these things make them Uncle Toms in the eyes of liberals/Democrats.
    The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary

  8. Lagniapple, I strongly agree with people not having kids and I agree strongly with Swalm. BUT, I want you to explain a point of severe hypocricy you seem to have. You say you want small government and more self-reliance. I am all for that, but that is not what modern republicansim is and it is certainly not what you are. Let me explain:

    1. "small gov" would indicate less laws, such as DRUG LAWS. In other words, a "small gov" would legalize drugs and consider it "not gov's responsability". YOU hate the idea of drugs being legalized, hence you certainly want BIG gov. in that sense. This is not disputable for you, correct?

    2. "small gov" would not have police officers going around enforcing ITS laws. You are very pro-cop, hence you are BIG gov as far as cops are concerned. "Small gov" would consider cops ridiculously unneccessary in a country of "self reliant" people.

    So, reconcile this for me?

    I consider myself socially liberal, but I am actually more pro-self-reliance than you or most people. I don't need cops and don't think others should need them. I think drugs should be legalized and people should deal with their addiction personally as with tobacco use.

    Please reconcile this obvious point of hypocricy for me. It just really sticks in my craw.


  9. 1. It's "Lagniappe", not "Lagniapple", but addressing comments to Lagniappe's a bit silly anyway--he's a dog. He seldom reads these comments and never responds to them.

    2. It's interesting that you you argue that drug legalization and no police is somehow a tenet of the "small government" ideal then accuse me of being a hypocrite when you imply that I cannot favor small government because I support the police and/or enforcement of certain laws that you do not want to obey. However you're mixing things up a bit. Part of the problem obviously comes from your mistaken premise that the drug laws are "the government's" laws, as if the government is somehow it's own entity. If you understood the concepts upon which this country was founded, the government is us--we, the people. It was meant to be and still is a representative government. Their our laws, made by the people that we collectively sent to Washington. So be careful with the "us vs. them" straw man arguments where you claim that the government is somehow this boogeyman that just does things.

    Next, law enforcement is one of the few executive powers that our government was tasked with and legitimately exerts. Just as we as a people have the right to elect our own representatives to make laws that protect us all from harm, be it invasion or crime, we also have the right to expect that those laws will be enforced if they are not complied with. There is a difference between supporting the enforcement of basic public safety laws and demanding that the government use it's authority to tax people in order to redistribute wealth or take on other extraneous tasks. So one can easily be very pro-police and still very much in favor of small government.

    We as a society have deemed drugs and the traffic in drugs by individuals who are often armed and show a tendency to use violence in pursuit of their aims to be a legitimate public safety threat. We have also deemed drug use itself a threat due to the harms associated with drug use itself and also those caused by people under the influence of or in pursuit of drugs. As such, we have the right to keep drugs and drug traffickers from crossing our border and/or moving among us. Your opposition to this--based, I suspect on the simple fact that it interferes with your desire to get high or otherwise profit from violations of our societal prohibition on drugs--doesn't make you one of the good guys nor does it make law enforcement personnel or their supporters bad. If anything, it makes you less of a good citizen because you're telling us that your loyalty to the decisions of the rest of us is secondary to your personal desires and that rather than use our system and work for changes in our laws as our founding fathers allowed you to, you seem to imply that that you will only obey the laws that don't inconvenience you personally. If that's erroneous, feel free to correct my impression.

  10. I appreciate your response and the time you took, thanks. I don't mean to be confrontational, but I very strongly disagree and you'll never change my mind.

    I can't help but think you did a dissertation of "spin" there. You also assumed me to be a law-breaker which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand (more spin and distraction). Small gov is small gov is small gov. End of story. You are basically saying, "republicans want small government except when they want big government." It's the same spin I hear all the time. You need to think outside the box. Do you want small gov or not? because less laws, less prisons, less public employees, less military IS SMALL GOVERNMENT! It irritates me that you cannot or will not see that. You just proved me right. You proved to me that you don't really want "small gov", you want "small gov" for services that you DON'T want, and "big gov" for services that you DO want. That is all fine, but don't say you want "small gov" when you really don't. Don't say you want "personal responsibily" whilst wanting police/military to do the work that you should be responsible for yourself. Don't you see that? Break it down, don't overthink it. You stated that the government is for the people, by the people and in that case, it is legit. Well, then why can't any other form of gov that you DONT like be legit since it is for the people by the people. It's the same thing.

    Secondly, it DEEPLY irritates me that you assume I am a law breaker. I am actually a VERY strict law obeyer. I go through a LOT of trouble to follow every dang law in the book, 100% of the time. People think I am crazy for it and you would too. If you were to watch my law-following in action I gaurantee you would be shocked and would have to eat your words. Do realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is a law-breaker, and YOU are certainly no law-follower as you have shown MANY times in your blog. Republicans Bush and Cheney for example, have BOTH been arrested for drunk driving.

    Anyway, thanks for the back and forth here. But lets agree to disagree.