Good answer, Ben. But he really weakened his message right at the end when he said that government has a big role in facilitating help for the poor. The government's definition of facilitating is running the whole show.

There is much to like about Ben Carson.

"The government should read the Constitution."
What a radical idea!

There are those who would suggest that the "government" wants as many people on welfare as possible because this gives the "government" the ability to control the masses. All you need is enough people to be able to sway the vote.

The church I belong to has an excellent program for caring for the poor. It would be even better if the government stayed out of trying to control it. In this program the poor are given basic needs and given counselling to help them manage their resources better and they are taught employment and job skills. The most important thing they are given is an opportunity to maintain their dignity by giving them an opportunity to do something in return for what they are given.
Us members who, for whatever reason, have all our needs met and have a surplus are given the opportunity to help and serve those who are less fortunate. At least once a month we fast for two consecutive meals and donate the value of those meals (typically much more than the value of those meals) to help those who are in need. We are also given the opportunity to serve them.
A few weeks ago I worked in the storehouse stocking store shelves. Those in need are referred to this store by their local minister to get needed food and supplies. So here I was, a retired professional with an MBA running around a warehouse pulling stock to replenish store shelves...and enjoying every minute of it!
That's the way it should work and the government needs to get back to it's constitutionally mandated job.

He has a great sense of humor and his timing is perfect.

I don't think that our society functions any longer like it did at the beginning BECAUSE of government taking over the role of community.
It will be a long hard road back to the kind of cohesiveness that Ben alludes to.

I think that we have some of it in the Gulch...and that is good.

I don't think it ever possible to have government involved and not be in charge. More the reason to keep them small and out of peoples lives.

Yes, and he had an opportunity to go off on his religious beliefs, but he didn't. He talked about secular gov't issues.

Edited from
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/201...

CARSON:
My stance is that, we the people have the responsibility to take care of the indigent in our society. You can read the constitution all you want, it never says that it is the government's job and I think where we've gotten confused.

In the old days of America when communities were separated by hundreds of miles, why were they able to thrive? Because if it was harvest time and the farmer was up in the tree picking apples and fell down and broke his leg, everybody pitched in and harvested his crops for him. If somebody got killed by a bear, everybody took care of their family.

So we have a history a taking care of each other. Now, for some strange reason starting sort of in the twenties with Woodrow Wilson, the government started getting involved in everything. It kept growing. By the time we got to the sixties, LBJ was saying, we, the government, are going to eliminate poverty.

How did that work out? $19 trillion later, 10 times more people on food stamps, more poverty, more welfare, broken homes, out-of-wedlock births, crime, incarceration. Not only worse, much worse.

And that's because it's not their job. It's our job. I wish the government would read the Constitution. Maybe they did read it and maybe they got confused when they read the preamble which says one of the duties is to promote the general welfare.

They probably thought that meant putting everybody on welfare.

These days it does I wish it didn't

Its nice that he has quantifiable beliefs and that he's not intimidated into avoiding speaking of them whenever he chooses. The point that people dismiss him as a some type of zealot is disturbing since they ignore his intellect and his very good understanding of us as a nation. He's entirely correct on poverty - the fedgov should stop all its doing and get out of the way - this was I suspect, a prime reason why churches were given non-profit tax status - to help and care for the poor and those in need on a local level.

It's nice he answered without getting into his religious beliefs. I agree with some of what he's saying, but I don't agree with the focus on gov't spending directed to a "war on poverty". I agree with gov't efforts to eliminate poverty, the same way I agree with gov't efforts to protect the borders. We all benefit from it, and using tax dollars is a way to keep people from getting the benefit without paying. I completely support radical experiments in getting these things done voluntarily without forced taxation. I think the military should be drastically reduced in size and replaced with a militia of armed citizens protecting their homes. I think social programs should be fixed, reduced in size, partially replaced by tax credits, and focus entirely on the poor.

Great answer.

I agree, an excellent answer but did you catch the very last statement. For the government to facilitate anything puts them in charge, doesn't it?

Bravo, Ben!

Excellent answer. Not what the left wants to hear.