Matt and my comments took an interesting twist on the MP GOP Doomed article. It is a very interesting look into what social programs are from different perspectives.
Matt seems to believe that the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they want to "punish" the recipients. Kind of like when a Parent sends a Child to bed without supper...
Whereas I see the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they are aware that it is a "huge gift / investment" from the other tax payers in the country. And that it is only fair to expect the recipients to do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personnel situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.
My point is that poverty is the natural consequence of keeping a single parent household, squandering the huge K-12 investment our society made in the recipient, having more children than you can afford, having children too young, etc. Therefore any public assistance one receives is a blessing that one is not entitled to. Therefore one should be very thankful and work their butt off to use as little of it as they can, not complain that they are entitled to more. Thoughts?
Matt seems to believe that the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they want to "punish" the recipients. Kind of like when a Parent sends a Child to bed without supper...
Whereas I see the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they are aware that it is a "huge gift / investment" from the other tax payers in the country. And that it is only fair to expect the recipients to do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personnel situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.
My point is that poverty is the natural consequence of keeping a single parent household, squandering the huge K-12 investment our society made in the recipient, having more children than you can afford, having children too young, etc. Therefore any public assistance one receives is a blessing that one is not entitled to. Therefore one should be very thankful and work their butt off to use as little of it as they can, not complain that they are entitled to more. Thoughts?
"Please do tell. Name a societal level economic and or social ill eliminated by charity. Charity is wonderful for its purpose, targeted relief for specific problems. It can never be the panacea that conservatives wish it to be, due to the fact that too many competing interests are after the same dollar. Societal level problems require societal level solutions, not well intended half measures from a nonprofit community unequipped to address that level of need." Matt
"I am unsure. I may agree with Medicaid, however I don't think charity could have done any worse than the government intervention... Forbes War on Poverty" G2A
"There's a reason for the term "poorhouse." There's also a reason we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to. You live in a world which has never seen the way things used to be, a world that is, on average, utterly ignorant of its own history. It's reflected in nearly all aspects of life and only grows more obvious with each passing year. Would that folks pause to speak with even one person who actually experienced the past before the sweeping victories of the New Deal and Great Society, perhaps minds might change, but as fewer and fewer remain (at least those who were in a position to understand the implications, sorry boomers) that opportunity will soon pass." Matt
"Choices. "collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to."
It is interesting comparing families here to families in Asia. Over there it is more likely to have grand parents, parents and children living together. Whereas here we seem to have outsourced child raising of our young and elder care to the government in many cases. Maybe it is our self centered independent American way...
Maybe this is part of why there are so many single parent households out there. I mean why would anyone choose to deal with their Parents or a Spouse, and their expectations of us, when Uncle Sam is out there handing out checks without judgment, advice or expectations? Why would we choose to help care for Mom or Dad in their old age when there are government funded nursing homes available?
I agree whole heartedly that we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to resolve many personal and family issues. Unfortunately it came with a big price tag for our society and some terrible consequences for our most vulnerable children. On the upside is very convenient and let's us delegate some of those family responsibilities elsewhere..." G2A
"Always a punishment. It's really the only card conservatism knows how to play isn't it. Couldn't afford to save for retirement? Starve, or bankrupt your children. Can afford health insurance? Die, or bankrupt your entire lineage. Want to give your kids an education? Better have the funds or else.
The problem with your entire mindset was never that it didn't, or could still today, work for SOME people. It's that it would be disastrous for MOST people.
If you'd like an example, let me suggest ME. My mother's father died 6 months after I was born. She and my father were 20 something's, married young with my seven year old sister already around. They had just begun to get their heads above water, with my mom having just landed the job she'd hold until last year, and my Dad getting through tech school. My grandmother was a lovely lady, but being rendered deaf at a young age by scarlet fever had never gotten advanced education, being considered too disabled by the general consensus of the times. She was completely dependent upon my grandfather, unable even to drive. As she aged her diabetes consumed ever more of her budget. Did I mention my mother's sibling were still in high school at the time?
Under your worldview, responsibility for my grandmother and her minor children should have been assumed by my parents, which would have cost them two homes, as well as any hope to save for their own future. It would have cost my aunt and uncle the college degrees they both earned later and the success they enabled. It would have cost my sister and I ours as well, and likely cost my younger brother his chance to be born.
What prevented all of this, not charity, we come from poor families in a poor town, in a poor county, in a backwater state. There was no one else not to busy trying to survive themselves, to assist us. Social security, Medicaid, and later Medicare SAVED my mother's family, and by extension saved me the success I have enjoyed in my life. Spare me the condescension about caring for my elders, we have, by enabling programs to ensure they have what they need even if we can't provide it." Matt
"You call not offering social support systems a "punishment", where as I see having social support systems as a "huge gift / investment" that the recipients should be incredibly thankful for. In fact they should be so thankful that they should do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personal situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.
Do you in someway believe that society owed your family the help you received?
What do you think your family did to earn the tax dollars from the pockets of your neighbors?
If you in no way earned that "gift / investment" from the other tax payers, how could putting conditions on your receipt of it be considered a punishment?
As I have said before, I am happy to see tax dollars used to help people improve. (ie learn to fish) However I am not happy to see tax dollars used to help healthy capable citizens stay sitting in the US Social Support hammock. (ie buying fish)
So it sounds like your family made good with "huge gift / investment" that the other tax payers in the country gave you from their wallet. That is excellent news, now why are you resistant to demanding that from the other recipients across the country?" G2A
76 comments:
It has always been ironic, to put it politely, that the party that believes in individual responsibility, has seen nothing wrong in dictating the personal behavior of those who tend not to belong to it. Preparing as they are to nominate a serial philanderer who has been married three times while sustaining multiple bankruptcies to the highest office in the land, they see no inconsistency in claiming the reason people are poor is that they aren't married and that they can't balance their checkbooks.
--Hiram
Actually i think I have explained many reasons why poor people are poor.
As for Trump... I don't totally disagree with your assessment. The reality though is that he is smart, educated, driven and apparently does not drink alcohol. And even with his complicated married life, he seems to stay in relationships pretty consistently. Wiki Trump
In my own experience, I have noted that financial difficulties impose tremendous pressure on relationships.
--Hiram
It definitely is a nasty vicious cycle.
Maintaining a household while single is very very expensive.
Maintaining a relationship while struggling financially is difficult.
However in the past I think that struggle may have caused many couples to stay together and become more reliant on each other. (ie little house on the prairie... fiddler on the roof...)
Whereas now... Why struggle and put up with your partner's faults or struggle to fix your own? I mean you can walk away from your commitment and charge the bill to other tax payers...
sorry, but I can't remember if I posted these links already, (if I did I don't remember any comments on them, although I can pretty much guess what the comments will be):
Do Lucky People Feel Better About Paying Taxes? (Kevin Drum)
How to persuade rich people to pay more in taxes: remind them how lucky they are (Vox)
Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy (Amazon)
anyhow, in a nutshell, a person's success should be attributed to both hard work and good luck, so share the wealth a little.
Not sure liberals would agree with the old adage, "The Lord helps them that help themselves," but would they be any more comfortable saying, "The GOVERNMENT helps those who help themselves"? Or do they think we should hand out these goodies to the undeserving, as "the rain falls equally on the just and the unjust"?
"anyhow, in a nutshell, a person's success should be attributed to both hard work and good luck, so share the wealth a little." --- Laurie
I heartily agree with you. However, I insist that such sharing be voluntary, not coerced through government and then spent in ways that are counterproductive of he stated aims.
"The Lord helps them that help themselves,"
Many liberals believe that the Lord helps and doesn't help all kinds of people.
"The GOVERNMENT helps those who help themselves"?
The GOVERNMENT helps all kinds of different people too. A lot of people like to characterize government actions in moralistic term. That a tax break or maybe fixing a pothole in front of someone's house is a reward, or denying a tax break and leaving a pothole unattended is a form of punishment, but I don't think that's a useful way of thinking. For one thing, moral judgments are highly subjective, and often contradictory. The same moralist who will tell you having children out of wedlock is wrong will also more often than not, tell you having an abortion is wrong. It's very difficult untangling that kind of reasoning and I fail to see why it's worth the effort.
--Hiram
"so share the wealth a little"
I think of charitable giving when I hear the word share.
I really don't think of forced financial transfers from one citizen to another. To me that seems to imply each of us is owed a "share" just for standing on American soil... Whether we learn & work, or don't learn and don't work...
As I tried to ask Matt... If those Moderators weren't so sensitive...
"Do you in someway believe that society owed your family the help you received?
What do you think your family did to earn the tax dollars from the pockets of your neighbors?
If you in no way earned that "gift / investment" from the other tax payers, how could putting conditions on your receipt of it be considered a punishment?
As I have said before, I am happy to see tax dollars used to help people improve. (ie learn to fish) However I am not happy to see tax dollars used to help healthy capable citizens stay sitting in the US Social Support hammock. (ie buying fish)
So it sounds like your family made good with "huge gift / investment" that the other tax payers in the country gave you from their wallet. That is excellent news.
Now why are you resistant to demanding that from the other recipients across the country?" G2A
As I mentioned elsewhere, we invest $140,000 to $300,000 or more into each child raised in America. Now if they waste that investment by not learning... And preparing to be a productive member of our society...
Exactly how much do you think we should continue to invest in them into their adulthood?
Are they fulfilling their obligation to be a "good citizen" and supporter of our country?
Personally I would like to send them to forced military service like in Israel. At least then they would learn, mature and become more productive. Instead I think you want to just keep sending them checks from other tax payers.
In your mind, is there a limit to how much the tax payers should give a true "free loader"?
Should there be any legal consequence for being a long time burden on society?
I really don't think of forced financial transfers from one citizen to another. To me that seems to imply each of us is owed a "share" just for standing on American soil
But of course we are. If we think of forced transactions going one way, how do we not think of them going the other way. Isn't obligation the flip side of having rights?
You can think of these things as the result of freedom or as the result of force. But if either freedom or force is on one side of the equation, it must be on the other side of the equation too, and in each case, cancel itself out.
--Hiram
"If we think of forced transactions going one way, how do we not think of them going the other way. "
I assume one forced transaction is that government requires wealthier people to pay more taxes even though we all stand on the same American soil with the same rights and freedoms, and then government distributes this money to the less wealthy people.
Please define the other forced transaction that you are envisioning?
Perhaps we should be making the very important distinction between charity and government welfare. Charity can and must be private, exactly matching the need and the means, and considering the degree of effort made compared to what is possible for the recipient. My example is the guy who breaks both legs and cannot work the two jobs needed to support his family. Our church steps in and make sure the family is fed, properly clothed and has a few Christmas gifts, but when his legs heal we find him a job and wish him well.
Government welfare cannot do charity because it stems from one-size-fits-all rules that take no account of the effort or ability of the individuals. What it CAN do is to take public money and "invest" in making or restoring citizens to productivity, through education, training, temporary food, clothing and shelter, and, unfortunately, the right "carrots and sticks" to make that public expenditure pay for itself. Needless to say that is not what is happening.
I somewhat disagree, I think government could do charity if us citizens could all agree what it means to be a "responsible citizen". And what we as a society will do to those who fail to live up to the expectation.
Unfortunately we apparently have many citizens who believe everyone in America deserves food, clothing, housing, healthcare, etc whether those people are helping to row the American boat or sitting with their feet in the water.
I am trying to think of any other public organization that is so tolerant of members who behave in a way that damages the organization and harms its other members. As I noted, we invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into each and every citizen... What do we expect of our fellow organizational members in return?
Is it really okay if they have more children than they can support raising to be responsible future members of the club?
Is it really okay if they fail to achieve the academic goals?
I am not trying to be mean... But what do Liberals think citizens need to do to deserve USA organizational membership with all it's benefits? If they fail to meet the club's base standards, how will the other members enforce their stepping up?
In the real world teachers are doing their best to educate students in schools where 15% of the students meet grade level standards. Taking advantage of the education that is provided is not as simple as you think and society is not nearly so full of lazy, irresponsible people as you imagine.
I was trying to think of a good example... This isn't one but it is one I came up with...
Let's imagine a small town with 1000 people in it. Now me being a fantasy fiction fan (ie Tolkien, Salvatore, Feist, etc), the people in this town are in an intense competition with the other neighboring towns. Food is scarce, threats surround them and only the most productive town will thrive and enjoy happiness.
Like in all other cities there are the very motivated and the not so motivated, there are strong and the weak, the smart and the not too smart, the generous and the stingy/larcenous, etc.
Now this is a pretty forward thinking fantasy city because they ensure that all families get some food, lodging, healthcare, a full K-12 education, and the people who earn the most money also pay the most in taxes to fund this society. Now please remember that this city needs to compete if it wants everyone in the city to enjoy the highest level of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The town elders are wise folk who face a problem. Most the citizens have only the number of children that they can afford and are capable of being good parents for. They usually live in 2 Parent households and their children grow up academically capable, law abiding, and ready to contribute to the ongoing good of the society. However there are others who for some unknown reason live in single parent homes, have a very hard time learning, tend to have more children than they can afford and simply are not academically capable of doing the high value jobs that are needed in their society. And to make it worse, many of them are resistant to doing the dirty difficult jobs that are also critical to the survival and growth of the town.
Now being forward thinking elders, for the past 50 years they have been taking even more from the people in the 2 parent household group and giving it to the people in the 1 parent households. The society has helped to house, feed, and care for these people in the belief that when they were given this extra assistance the families of their own volition would become stable, they would become more financially stable, their children would learn and then they could help their society to thrive.
Unfortunately their plan has failed... The number of the single parent households have grown, they are still poor and their children are still failing academically. Worse yet, their region has become even more competitive, dangerous. Making it even harder for the society to absorb the costs of caring for these people who are resistant to changing and improving. The elders realize that giving the people something for nothing has failed terribly.
As it stands there are ~800 citizens who are learned, hard working and truly enabling the success of the city... The other 200 are not smart enough to do the challenging jobs or willing to do the unpopular jobs, so they are relegated to low value jobs and are net recipients of funds from the town's coffers.
The question before the elders is how to entice or force the 200 people to change their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors before their choices doom the town to failure. Thoughts?
Laurie,
So our society is investing ~$10,000 per child per year for the school you work at and ~$21,000 per child per year at Mpls schools. On top of this society is likely investing to feed many of these children and provide medical care. And in your school only 15% of the students are ready for the workforce when they graduate. And what is it for Mpls? 40% for some of the demographic groups.
Is that what you are saying? If so, how is our society going to encourage the Parents/Teachers to do better? Or do you think we should keep investing hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 15% success rate?
Our country needs smart, creative, hard working citizens if our "town" is going to survive and thrive in this challenging dangerous world. How can we get people to change and improve their personal situation?
I assume one forced transaction is that government requires wealthier people to pay more taxes even though we all stand on the same American soil with the same rights and freedoms, and then government distributes this money to the less wealthy people.
Were the crooked transactions that led to the financial crisis any less crooked because rich people benefited from them?
"The question before the elders is how to entice or force the 200 people to change their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors before their choices doom the town to failure. Thoughts?"
It's a free country, and the fact is people can have as many as children as they choose. We certainly don't get to force the transactions required by marriage or living together on a long term basis. And really one area where pro life people are right is that we need to have more children. And one area where both pro life and pro choice forces agree is that we need to do more to support the decision to have a child no matter what the issues the parents are having.
--Hiram
"Taking advantage of the education that is provided is not as simple as you think and society is not nearly so full of lazy, irresponsible people as you imagine."
I am going to agree with Laurie again. If society were deprived of all the people who came from poor families, we would all be poorer for it. The problem isn't the poverty of these folks with "too many children," it is the poverty of values and of spirit that gets transmitted to those children, and government welfare that warehouses them regardless of such irresponsible behavior is causing and compounding the problem.
Let me give you an example of the difference. Several years ago I was surprised to learn that Catholic Charities had changed the rules for their Transitional Housing program. Unlike Section 8 housing that government provides, this is temporary, until folks (with massive personalized assistance from CC) get "back on their feet." The rule change was simply that if you were on drugs or liquor, or failed to make adequate "effort," you were out, or more likely didn't even get in. And yet our welfare system steadfastly refuses to have such requirements, or time limits, or expectations, or even assistance. It's surprising how much the "soft bigotry of low expectations" combined with hopelessness can look like irresponsibility. What is truly irresponsible is allowing government to mistreat so many of our citizens this way.
Hiram,
No one forced individuals to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back. They entered into their mortgages of their own free will.
You are correct that this is a free country, and yet you want to burden the "800" group of citizens with the costs incurred by the poor choices made by the "200" group of people at the risk of the whole town. This does not sound very free.
Freedom comes with responsibilities in a society like ours. It is what enables our society to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Jerry,
I have no desire to ignore our poor, I want to peer pressure them into straightening out and becoming responsible, capable, mature, hard working, productive, etc members of our society.
So the questions are:
- how can society pressure more of these individuals/families to step up their game?
- what do we as a society want to do with those individuals/families who decide improving is too hard and that they are fine living a minimalistic life as a burden on their fellow tax payers?
Hiram,
By the way, the USA does not need children to be born here. There are billions of other humans on this planet who would love to move here and have what we have.
Jerry,
I know you disagree, but the citizens create, control, empower and manage the government. It is what the citizens make it.
And you are avoiding the question that Conservatives often avoid.
- what do we as a society want to do with those individuals/families who decide improving is too hard and that they are fine living a minimalistic life as a burden on their fellow tax payers?
Please remember my friend who spent 10 years trying to save his daughter and grand daughter from a life of drugs, free loading, making more babies, etc. He paid for counseling, paid her bills, took care of the grand daughter, etc until the point that she finally moved downtown and is now living with some gang member who is in and out jail. The whole while society has been assisting by paying for their food, healthcare, her methodone treatments and transportation, etc.
The good news is that the Father of the grand daughter thankfully straightened his life out and now has custody of her. The bad / good news is that the woman was made pregnant again by the gang banger, thankfully she miscarried.
So what is society to do with the million or so people like this 30 year old woman who is out to destroy herself, her family and weaken our country?
Hiram, The mortgage broker and investment firms contributed to the problem and have paid massive fines...
Why are you afraid to discuss the reality of people like my friend's daughter and so interested in side tracking this comment string?
These people are hurting units with little income, little self esteem and cost our country many billions of dollars year in and year out. Their is no upside for them or for us.
The Liberal answer seems to be that we should just keep writing them checks and close our eyes to their immature actions and pain. I can think of little that is more cruel.
As for your question about personal responsibility, it is simple. It used to be that if you didn't make the effort, you didn't eat and nobody felt sorry for you. And if you couldn't work for no fault of your own, the neighbors or the church would look after you until you could. So long as government usurps the role of simple human compassion by handing out benefits with total disregard for the individual's real welfare, the normal compassion and social standards of the society cannot apply.
Back to my question then.
"What do we as a society want to do with those individuals/families who decide improving is too hard and that they are fine living a minimalistic life as a burden on their fellow tax payers?"
Do we let my friends daughter starve? Become homeless? Die?
Do we let her deliver another infant into her screwed up world?
I love this guy. Be warned... He swears a lot.
Sotomayor TV
Sotomayor on Youtube
We don't "let" her do anything whatsoever. We give her the freedom and the responsibility for her own actions. We can and should offer her every opportunity to behave responsibly and to join the ranks of productive and happy citizens, but eventually those run out. She can sustain herself through the kindness of strangers or relatives through voluntary charity, until they get tired of her freeloading and then she has some decisions to make AND the freedom to make them, with the full knowledge (either before or shortly after that decision) of the consequences. The problem with liberal government welfare is that it shields people from the consequences of their poor decisions.
Of course we let her...
We set parental expectations as a society and can enforce them.
We can afford to feed her or let her starve.
"We can afford to feed her or let her starve."
I would point out that, at some point, we can NOT afford to feed her (and too many like her) as a matter of simple economics, and we can NOT, morally, let her starve UNLESS we want to go Biblical and say "let him who will not work, not eat."
As much as I believe we're all God's children and deserve dignity and respect, I would point out that there is no human dignity nor compassion in having the government extract from you, by force, and give to someone who did not earn it. It's not economically viable, either. The only wealth of a nation is created by people working, and to pay people to not work is to consume wealth while producing nothing in return.
Oh, and I should also add that hunger is a powerful motivator. She won't starve.
I agree with your last comment. She likely will not starve, odds are she will end up in prison or go back to the drugs and OD.
Hopefully she does not have any more children before that occurs...
I tried again to get a response through the MP Censor...
"Not Punishment. I am sorry, but I don't see with holding something that you have not earned as punishment. If one of my Daughters over spends her allowance and does not have money to go out with her friends. I am not punishing her by not giving her additional money.
Now I do have choices. I could feel sorry for here and give her additional money with no strings attached. Of course that may encourage her to continue overspending her allowance since Dad is a sucker...
Or I can give her money with strings attached. The goal being to help her learn how to better manage her finances.
I am happy that your family did well with the no strings gift that your fellow tax payers gave them. The problem we have is that many other households are not learning or growing from the no strings attached gifts that they have been given by their fellow tax payers. The single parent household problem is growing and their academic achievement success rate is terrible. So how do we tie more strings to our gift to help them improve for their sake and the good of their children?" G2A
" So how do we tie more strings to our gift..."
Easy. Just do it, and then withstand the howls of outrage from the "welfare rights" crowd shown so prominently in the videos you posted. I've met this "entitlement mentality" and they will not quietly do what they must do to earn their "gift." Look at what happened when these welfare queens were asked to send their kids to school!
That isn't to say that there aren't a lot of people now on welfare that would be happy to get off if given the opportunity to do so without committing economic suicide. I'm still guessing it is like 80% or so who would, and that welfare keeps them trapped is the true crime in all this. And those who are in true poverty but still avoiding welfare on moral grounds should be commended and offered similar opportunities to better themselves.
"Hiram and Sean want to beat this to death again instead of discussing how to better push people into the light..." G2A
"You can't discuss how to push people to the light until you fully comprehend why they are in the dark.
It's easy to moralize and point fingers and poor people. It's much harder to address how as a society we have kept a boot on their throat and made it difficult for them to stand up." Sean
Sean,
That is oh so incorrect. Per the Sotomayor video above, there is a welfare Mom with 3 children from 3 different Fathers. I really do not need to understand how she got to that state... There is nothing one can do about the past.
She is unhappy that her welfare benefits can be cut if her children do not attend school. So do we cave and say that's okay... You can keep your benefits no matter what you do?
Or do we say for the good of our society it is critical that your children succeed academically, society is paying your bills, now get your butt in gear and make sure your kids succeed in school and are ready to be successful!!!
"There is nothing one can do about the past."
The problem is that what you believe is in the past is actually still happening to this very minute.
So predatory lenders are in some way causing the welfare Mom noted in the video to get pregnant and deliver 3 children from 3 different Fathers. All of who seem to have not been willing to make her an "honest woman".
And these same lenders in some way causing her to be concerned that her welfare benefits are now dependent on her ensuring her children get to school.
When are you going to stop making excuses for poor irresponsible and/or neglectful parents?
"When are you going to stop making excuses for poor irresponsible and/or neglectful parents?"
I'm not making excuses for them. It's easy to pick a person and point to their flaws and foibles and blame them for what went wrong in their lives. The reality is you can do that for anybody. We all sin. We all have bad habits. We all have made bad decisions at one point or another.
Another thing that is real to this day is that there are elements of our society that actively work to keep some down. My family (and yours) hasn't been subjected to centuries of discrimination. My family (and yours) is much less likely to be pushed some garbage financial product. My family (and yours) is far more likely to get the benefit of the doubt should one of us end up being charged with a crime. My family (and yours) is more likely to get a job interview just because of how our name sounds.
You can't fix the problem without addressing the systemic and the personal issues.
So you are sticking with your view that she was made pregnant by 3 different men, and none of them stayed with her because:
- of aggressive salespeople
- some of her peers are thrown in jail when they break the law
- some of her peers named their kid Jamal and he had a hard time getting an interview.
How about we try a different cause:
- she was likely raised by a young immature mother, maybe with no Father in the house and on welfare
- her Mother had no good Parenting role model so she did the best she could based on how she was raised
- likely she had a hard time in school since her Mom was unable to help
- maybe she met her "Prince Charming" and agreed to have unprotected sex with him
- Of course when she got pregnant "Prince Charming" turned into a slimy frog and left her.
- The infant was all hers and it showed unconditional love. And it came with a welfare check and food stamps.
- Then the next "Prince Charming" came and the cycle repeated it
To me it seems that you are forgetting that these are not highly educated people who have been trained to be assertive, communicate well, etc by a pair of capable Parents. They are in essence children raising children.
By the way, we are often preyed on by salesmen. The difference is that we were trained to say NO, or to dig into the details.
I didn't watch your video because I don't care. I'm not going to sit here and argue the specifics of one person because it's irrelevant to the larger question. The issue of poverty is not one that can be solved by debating who can find the most compelling YouTube video.
And perhaps you should reread my last post because you obviously missed the point.
The Liberal answer for fixing this "immature low education parents raising immature low education children" seems to be to give them the money from other tax payers with no strings.
Whereas any parent with "immature low education" teen agers in the house knows, just giving them money with no strings is the recipe for failure. Because you end up with spoiled immature low education dependent young adult children...
They need the money to survive, but they need structure, rules, coaching, penalties, etc to grow, learn, mature and become truly independent.
Oh come now, it is a Black man commenting on the problems within his community... How can you ignore that very honest feedback.
By the way, I reread your comment.
You said that "let you without sin throw the first stone"... And those poor people are not responsible for their situation or personal choices because of the behaviors of others.
Implying that we need to fix everyone else and protect them before we can expect them to make better choices.
"The Liberal answer for fixing this "immature low education parents raising immature low education children" seems to be to give them the money from other tax payers with no strings."
There aren't many welfare programs that meet that description.
"And those poor people are not responsible for their situation or personal choices because of the behaviors of others."
Nope. Didn't say that.
Sean, I'll agree and disagree. We got into this "fix" because of long-past racial inequalities that prevented black people from acquiring the financial and human capital on par with white folks. Then the welfare system came along to "help" them out of poverty and instead broke up the black family making it more difficult for them to succeed. Supposedly the opportunities have been there since the 60s, but climbing out of the "hole" of past discrimination and over the "welfare cliff" is harder than it needs to be. Those who have hardened attitudes and developed that sense of entitlement are going to be particularly hard to move into the mainstream of work and intact families.
What I disagree with is that we have to treat the past inequities and current causes to treat the symptoms of the disease. We can remove the obstacles-- IMHO the current welfare system-- and we can replace them with incentives to succeed and consequences for failure to try. We will quickly separate out those who could not from those who will not, and the joy won't be in who was "right" about which predominated but in that most of these folks finally are successful.
Sean,
Please clarify what you mean by "You can't fix the problem without addressing the systemic and the personal issues." Sean
I agree that my paraphrase may be different. However whenever I mention parental and personal accountability measures, you point to some systemic issue.
"And those poor people are not responsible for their situation or personal choices because of the behaviors of others. Implying that we need to fix everyone else and protect them before we can expect them to make better choices." G2A
Sean's point though is that the racist practices are still happening.
Though on one hand the government says you must loan to people in high risk neighborhoods, while on the other they say don't put the market at risk by making high risk loans... It is interesting.
It's not complicated, John. We have to address the systemic issues and we have to address the personal issues. Together, at the same time. You can't understand the why/how of how people make poor personal decisions without understanding the systemic factors that contribute significantly to it. You can't break the cycle for future generations without addressing those systemic factors in a serious way. You want to talk about family breakdown in African-American communities? Well, a large part of that discussion is understanding the impacts generations of discrimination in employment, politics, criminal justice, and access to the means of wealth creation have had (and are still having, because they're still going on) in those communities. Compare how the opioid problem today (which is affecting a lot of white suburban/rural kids) is discussed versus how crack was discussed thirty years ago.
Sean,
Do you think racism, predatory lending and police focus has gotten worse during the past 50+ years or better? My opinion is that it has gotten much better.
And yet the unwed child bearing has gone through the roof.
And though we often fall into the trap of discussing Black single parent households, academic failure and poverty... The reality is that this disastrous trend applies across races.
Family Trends and Poverty
I think we as a society could do these young immature not too bright citizens and their children a lot more good with tough love than we will ever accomplish by giving them money.
And if those silly religious folks would let us pay for LARC... All the better.
"Do you think racism, predatory lending and police focus has gotten worse during the past 50+ years or better? My opinion is that it has gotten much better."
It's clearly gotten better. The paradox about that, however, is that it's hardest to root out what is left. I also don't think it's gotten as much better as many on the right seem to think it has.
"The reality is that this disastrous trend applies across races."
There are also class dimensions to deal with, clearly. The loss of manufacturing and mining jobs as well as the decrease in the power of labor unions has hurt a lot of working class white families in the "Rust Belt" and Appalachia, in particular. The fact that poor white women are seeing their life expectancy decrease is shocking. Resistance to government spending also hurts working class families as well. This is the first recovery in post-WW2 history where the federal government hasn't expanded employment.
One more try to get past the MP Censors...
"Giving welfare is a gift to and/or an investment in a citizen/family from the tax payers in society. Placing conditions on it is not necessarily a punishment. Especially if the requirements are written in such a way to pressure the recipient to improve their capabilities, education, maturity, independence, parenting, etc.
If 9 students do not get a "scholarship with several performance conditions" and 1 does. Are the 9 being "punished"? Or is the 1 getting a gift/investment that they should be thankful for and willing to work hard to capitalize on.. "
Sean,
"don't think it's gotten as much better" Obviously you didn't see "The Help" or "Driving Miss Daisy". And of course Black Americans still have big problems... 72% of the children are born out wedlock... Just imagine the challenges our kids would have if Dad bailed and left a Mom with an ~8th to 10th grade education to raise the kid(s)
Spending resistance????
Our spend as a percentage of GDP is near an all time high... What are you thinking?
Now you may say that the politicians are not spending it where you want them to. That would be more accurate.
I think we have a chicken or egg problem here. Clearly historic (and I will concede some ongoing) racism have held back black mobility into the middle class or at least "out of poverty" (maybe that's the same thing). But I find it hard to believe that it was and is racism that destroyed the black family or created the "thug life" attitude or caused education to be both devalued and not pursued. I don't think racism created the entitlement mentality so obvious in the videos.
Yes, we have systemic problems that have created a permanent underclass that has a cultural war going with the rest of society. I can't help but believe the "war on poverty" was the first battle in what has become a losing war for both "sides."
What about Sean's thought that American consumers buying low cost overseas products and services, resulting in fewer good paying jobs in some way resulted in significantly more unmarried births and more single parent households?
Personally I think it is incorrect. I mean for centuries people were in much worse straits and I don't think I have ever heard of this problem. In fact, I think desperate times pulled couples together.
I am still thinking:
- free love / moral decay/ fewer Church goers / little social stigma
- welfare reducing the negative consequences of being a single Parent
- single poor parents are challenged to raise children well. Which escalates the problem with each generation.
- and schools/ a society that lets students fail (ie low expectations)
I think that's pretty good thinking. After all, you will find nations of the world with much higher unemployment and poverty, and families stay together. The fact that we subsidize unemployment and single parenting probably "buys" us a lot more of it.
"Our spend as a percentage of GDP is near an all time high... What are you thinking?"
Government spending is increasing because of our aging population, not because we are hiring more workers. Here's the track record of change in # of employees by President going back to Reagan:
Obama: Federal (-16,000), State (-106,000), Local (-375,000) TOTAL: -497,000
G.W. Bush: Federal (+33,000), State (+401,000), Local (+1,310,000) TOTAL: +1,744,000
Clinton: Federal (-339,000), State (+353,000), Local (+1,920,000) TOTAL: +1,934,000
G.H.W. Bush: Federal (-66,000), State (+326,000), Local (+867,000) TOTAL: +1,127,000
Reagan: Federal (+197,000), State (+491,000), Local (+726,000) TOTAL: +1,414,000
Half a million government jobs eliminated under Obama is a big deal, especially for minority communities and particularly African-Americans.
NY Times Public Sector Jobs Vanish, Hitting Blacks Hard
I don't think government workers are the proper measure of how much too big the government is. Total spending, perhaps, but more important still is the regulatory reach to which much of that spending is dedicated. Those who want and can afford health care that they like and can afford no longer have much of an option. Those willing to set aside for their own retirement have to hand Uncle 14% off the top before they can begin. You can escape some taxes if you do what government wants you to do with your money. And you could be more charitable if it weren't coerced from you and given to the indigent. There's plenty of "punishment and reward" for those working hard and playing by the warped rules.
Sean,
That was a fascinating NYT Article. Here are a few sections that caught my eye.
"Many employed blacks are stuck in lower-wage industries that tend to have fewer benefits and higher turnover, which is one reason public sector jobs — more likely to be unionized and subject to stricter anti-discrimination protections — have been such a magnet for blacks.
“Where else can you get a middle-class job without a college degree?” asked Bruce Bodner, the lawyer for the Transit Workers Union Local 234 in Philadelphia. A bus driver there who has been on the job for more than four years earns an average of $64,000 a year including overtime pay, he said, and skilled craft workers, like mechanics and carpenters, can earn more. Nearly 60 percent of the roughly 5,000 people who work for the city’s transit system, he said, are black.
State and local government workers earned an average of $28.17 an hour in December 2014, according to the Labor Department, in addition to a basket of other benefits worth nearly $16 an hour. (For a typical 35-hour week, that is roughly $51,000 a year, plus $29,000 in benefits.) Often their paychecks are supplemented with overtime."
"Supporters of curbs on the collective bargaining power of government employee unions like the one led by Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, said they were aimed at saving taxpayer money and improving efficiency.
But some researchers and union officials also see a racial undercurrent in the campaigns.
“With public employment in general being under attack, it’s really an attack on these communities,” said Mr. Bodner of the Philadelphia transit workers union, referring to black people.
Florida government workers have been targeted as well, Fedrick Ingram said, noting that the Republican Gov. “Rick Scott went directly after the unions here.”"
So in summary:
- we have ~22 Million jobs that pay more than market average
- they also are much more secure than market average
- the employees benefit greatly from these jobs
- the higher than market costs lead to higher government costs
- the higher government costs lead to higher taxes/debt levels
- people who try to remove these higher than market jobs / compensation and reduce government cost/taxes are actually stealth racists because Blacks have a higher percentage of them.
"we have ~22 Million jobs that pay more than market average"
Not true. In some areas, government pays more than private sector, but in other areas it pays less.
"people who try to remove these higher than market jobs / compensation and reduce government cost/taxes are actually stealth racists because Blacks have a higher percentage of them."
I didn't say that.
Sean,
Usually the only reason a union position pays less is because they negotiated it that way. (ie new teachers making too little, old teachers making too much, performance being a non-factor)
Please explain to me a public position that pays less than the exact same job with the exact same risks in private. If there is such a position, for what reason do employees work in the public job? My point is that publics come with a lot of benefits and job security that one will never find in the Private market. (ie part of publics being more expensive)
I agree you didn't note the racial bias issue directly, it was in the article. However you did note... "Half a million government jobs eliminated under Obama is a big deal, especially for minority communities and particularly African-Americans."
Sean,
So what is your thought?
Even though the rest of the world is getting more competitive through the use of technology, are you proposing we hire more public employees as a make work effort?
Remember my good idea to improve government effectiveness and the beauty of our communities.
Not every government job is a union job, for starters. Professional jobs (such as IT, engineers, etc.) frequently get paid less. I know when I was last on the job market, I looked and found that I would have to take a significant pay cut to go the public sector. Folks with a HS education tend to make more in government, while those with a masters degree and beyond tend to make less in government (even counting benefits).
Are the risks the same? They're probably somewhat lower in government, but certainly the fact that government employment has declined over the last eight years shows that it's not risk-free.
Saying something is "a big deal" is not the same as calling people racist. Please stop reading into my statements and putting words in my mouth.
"Even though the rest of the world is getting more competitive through the use of technology, are you proposing we hire more public employees as a make work effort?"
I'm merely suggesting that we understand which communities were are disparately impacting when we make those decisions and consider the consequences and steps we can take to help folks out.
Hey... This one was accepted at MP!!!
"Giving welfare is a gift to and/or an investment in a citizen/family from the tax payers in society. Placing conditions on it is not necessarily a punishment. Especially if the requirements are written in such a way to pressure the recipient to improve their capabilities, education, maturity, independence, parenting, etc.
If 9 students do not get a "scholarship with several performance conditions" and 1 does. Are the 9 being "punished"? Or is the 1 getting a gift/investment that they should be thankful for and willing to work hard to capitalize on.."
"Gift vs Duty
What you call a gift I call a civic responsibility. We as citizens enjoy the benefits of a civil and humane society. Our chosen economic system will by its nature produce individuals that do not share in this success. (In greater or lesser proportion depending on how purely we choose to rely upon its core tenets)To ensure the continued viability of our civil and humane society these individuals must be provided with aid and a reason to abide by the "rules" of civilization which prevent us from descending into anarchic chaos. It's really no more complex than that. The only "gift" being given is to ourselves, the successful, that we might continue to enjoy the rewards the accident of our birth provide." Matt
"Why we give the gift and make the investment is one thing. You are correct that there is a moral obligation and some very practical reasons. However it is still a gift to the recipient.
They have done nothing to earn the money, services, etc. Except as you note, they were lucky enough to be born or currently live within the boundaries of a country who honors the moral obligation to care for the poor.
Now what is the moral obligation of the recipient to the society who gives them this huge gift and opportunity? Should they feel obligated to improve their capabilities and get off the programs, or should they get comfortable and demand more generation after generation?
Should society give indefinitely? Or should we demand results in exchange for our investment?" G2A
My possible racism comment was from...
"Supporters of curbs on the collective bargaining power of government employee unions like the one led by Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, said they were aimed at saving taxpayer money and improving efficiency.
But some researchers and union officials also see a racial undercurrent in the campaigns."
"The Lord loves a cheerful giver." So how cheerful are we when government coerces our hard-earned from us and doles it out willy-nilly to some jerk we don't even know? If I wanted to be charitable, I would find somebody worth helping and help them help themselves. That's what charity is, and what government welfare is not. It robs people on both sides of the equation. It robs the "giver" of the opportunity for compassion and of the funds to exercise it, while it robs the receiver of the sense of gratitude, the obligation to help themselves, and generally the opportunity to do so.
MP string continued...
"It seems. You have some misunderstanding regarding the concept of a "gift". Generally speaking, if one is expecting recompense for an action, that action is NOT gift giving. Then again, given the title the off referred blog you run, such confusion is to be expected. As to your greater point, no one is appointed care giver or parent to any other by the act of paying their allotted tax. Why such action empowers some folks to feel as though they have such rights is a puzzle I've yet to decipher. Particularly considering most such folks are also exceedingly fond of telling other folks to mind their business with regards to how their own money is earned and spent, and how their lives should be conducted with regards to interpersonal relations (or lack thereof)." Matt
"Gift or Investment. I have been clear about calling it a gift / investment. I have also compared it to a scholarship. You are correct that if it was a true ideal gift, no strings would be attached. And as you implied, it may even be thought of as a payment from society "to ensure the continued viability of our civil and humane society these individuals must be provided with aid and a reason to abide by the "rules" of civilization which prevent us from descending into anarchic chaos."
Please remember that the money being received and spent is not the welfare recipient's money. It is society's money that has been taken from other tax payers and is being used by the recipient to reduce the negative consequences of their situation and hopefully help them improve their circumstances.
Now our money is our money, the government may increase the tax rate and use it to fund government activities. However the money the welfare recipient receives is subject to the generosity of our society and the laws we choose to pass, especially if it is a payment...
My question is not meant to be cruel, judgmental or controlling. We know without a doubt that hard working educated couples with ~2 children are much better off than other households. How can we adjust these investment and the rules to help promote these recipes for success within the group of welfare recipients? " G2A
MP Continued
"You can't. Because by doing so you automatically tip the scales in favor of only those who fit in your box. In essence you amplify the effects of an economic system that picks winners and losers by picking more winners and losers.
At some point you have to get your head around the fact that some folks just won't do what you'd like, no matter what you attempt. Then you need to accept that this is not a personal affront to you or anyone else, pay the toll to keep them out of trouble, and move on with your life.
Would it be nice if all who received help succeed, sure, is it the end of the world if they don't, no. Most will, just as most will not play the system to personal gain.
The constant obsession over the few who won't follow the rules set out by those who deem themselves arbiters of societal conformity is far more destructive than any amount of social spending could ever be." Matt
"Matt, This is a fascinating concept.
"At some point you have to get your head around the fact that some folks just won't do what you'd like, no matter what you attempt. Then you need to accept that this is not a personal affront to you or anyone else, pay the toll to keep them out of trouble, and move on with your life.
And I may agree with you if these folks did not have children who often follow in their parent's foot steps. What you are advocating dooms these individuals and their children to generational poverty and hopelessness. I am not ready to give up on the unlucky kids yet, I have faith that their Parents and they can learn the beliefs, behaviors and skills necessary to escape that vicious cycle given the correct balance of carrots and sticks....
"Generational poverty occurs in families where at least two generations have been born into poverty. Families living in this type of poverty are not equipped with the tools to move out of their situations. Understanding the Nature of Poverty "G2A
Continuing
"Would it be nice if all who received help succeed, sure, is it the end of the world if they don't, no. Most will, just as most will not play the system to personal gain."
"Most: What is your rationale for these statements?
Given these statistics and the fact that half the kids in Mpls are not academically capable, single parent households are way up, we are paying out almost $1 Trillion per year in tolls and the poverty rate is not going down. Black Demographics
And the reality that there are many people of all income levels who are fine with committing fraud or changing their life styles to get compensated. In the last 2 years my family has been the victim of check and credit card fraud. What makes you think people are above doing the same to the government? Just curious..." G2A
I long ago gave up trying to convince most liberals by way of rational thought. I concluded that if I am hung up on facts and logic, I am never going to understand.
OK, let us say what government provides in welfare is not a gift but an entitlement. That is actually correct because a gift is freely given and the taxes which fund entitlement spending are anything BUT voluntary. Therefore, how can a welfare check be an entitlement? What "entitles" someone to a check that was forced from somebody else? Leave government out of it, and it's robbery at best.
I say it's not a gift/investment, but it SHOULD be? With all possible strings, carrots and sticks attached.
"...a check that was forced from somebody else..."
You act as if you have no say in the matter.
Try not paying your taxes and see if "the force" doesn't come down on you.
Post a Comment