Nora Mead Brownell Quotes

We have the spectacle, still to be seen today, of the western rancher who accepts federal aid for his cattle operations and federal aid for his grazing requirements, but bitterly opposes all social programs that do not concern him, and the philosophy that lies behind them.

Government is promoting bad behavior... Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages? This is America!

Our Congress passes laws which subsidize corporation farms, oil companies, airlines, and houses for suburbia. But when they turn their attention to the poor, they suddenly become concerned about balancing the budget and cut back on the funds for Head Start, Medicare, and mental health appropriations.

Before this learning experience, I had assumed that with regard to programs that sought to help people out of poverty, the political world was essentially divided into two camps: conservatives who opposed these for a variety of reasons, and liberals who supported them.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Too many Mainers are dependent on government handouts. Government dependency has not - and never will - create prosperity.

There's a lot of people out now around America who depend on checks from their fellow taxpayers being in the mailbox every day.

Cynically but accurately put, Americans oppose public intervention or regulation if it helps others, but favor it if it helps them - take social security, disaster relief, public works projects, for example.

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks.

In order to advance the public weal efforts should be made to afford work to every able-bodied citizen on terms that will secure his existence… Any person unable to support himself or his dependants shall, where no other person is responsible for his or their maintenance, be entitled to receive public assistance …

... the most egregious form of corporate welfare imaginable.

I have always opposed subsidies to private corporations.

The relief now given by the Poor Laws is so widely extended that no man of humanity could venture to propose their immediate abolition.

Americans oppose public intervention or regulation if it helps others, but favor it if it helps them — take social security, disaster relief, public works projects, for example.

Venezuela’s state oil company routinely spends more on social programs then it does on exploration and production.

People like entitlements. That's why we spend so much on them.

I don't know how we will ever have the moral authority to deal with social welfare if we can't deal with corporate welfare.

Most Americans get that there is a need for a safety net in our country, and we support that safety net.

I don't go to the federal government and say, 'Fund my program.'

Philosophically, I don't believe in public funding for private sports.

The best reason to diminish social programs is not to put more money in people's pockets but to put more responsibility in people's pockets.

I'm not living off of any taxpayer money. If I am - if it's food stamps, it's a temporary resource.

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.

Fiscal policy should balance growth, equity, and sustainability concerns, including protecting society's most vulnerable.

We are not going to use money from the people of the state of Missouri for what I believe is corporate welfare. We've got far too many core priorities of government that have to be invested in.