Jerry made the following comment on G2A Graduation and Absent Rates, and my daily Dilbert calendar had the following cartoon recently... I thought it was a sign from God...
"Please explain the difference between "forcing them to be responsible" and "holding them accountable." I'm failing to see the distinction. Maybe what we should consider are the "incentives" in every government poverty or education program? What is the incentive in the current welfare system? To have more children to get more money, to NOT work to avoid cuts in benefits, to not care about getting your kids to school because they don't learn anything anyway, or because it isn't even safe, etc. Compare that with an incentive that says, you can have a job and make MORE money because you can keep receiving benefits, we'll arrange child care, your kids can go to school someplace where the ARE safe and getting an education with extra help if needed, etc. People will react to the incentives (and disincentives) presented to them. They make those decisions intelligently. All government (acting for "society") needs to do is to make sure those choices are PRESENTED intelligently.
One rule I have used throughout my work is that we make it easier for people to follow the correct procedure/process than to work around it. And that getting them to success at greater rates, because of it, is its own reward, driving out the old bad practice." G2A
Of course the challenge is that there is little that is rational about a woman having her 4th child from her 3rd man when she is barely getting by as it is. I mean we have now entered into the emotional world where everything does not need to make sense.
The discussion on the Graduation and Absent Rates centered around my beliefs:
- No one is even trying to force people to be responsible Parents.
- The Liberals think everyone has a right to have as many kids as they want whether they can afford them or not...
- The Conservatives seem to believe that everyone is a wise and capable Parent because they can have unprotected intercourse.
- Liberals are saying just trust the Teachers and close your eyes...
- Conservatives are saying just trust the Parents and close your eyes...
- Both of which have led to millions of children trapped in poverty...
I think America can do better...
67 comments:
People will react to the incentives (and disincentives) presented to them.
Well, sometimes they do, sometimes the don't. That's why it's so important to be careful in establishing incentives.
They make those decisions intelligently.
If people made decisions intelligently, why do they need incentives? Isn't the point of incentives to encourage people to change the decisions they would otherwise make?
In general, I am pretty skeptical of incentives. I think there is a lot of inertia in human behavior, and a lot of variety in what moves people. Also, for those inclined to do it, incentive based system are too easy to manipulate in ways that aren't consistent with their goals. I always think of that during Supreme court hearings, where the nominees seem to have resumes which are so much more distinguished than their careers. Human beings, like Apple computer products, come without instruction manuals.
--Hiram
about "he Liberals think everyone has a right to have as many kids as they want whether they can afford them or not" what is your alternative, forced contraception?
Three choices work for me:
- mandatory contraception
- mandatory early term abortion
- mandatory adoption
Remember our poster Mom for forced sterilization. Will you happily support her continued efforts to populate America with needy kids?
- mandatory contraception
- mandatory early term abortion
- mandatory adoption
you seriously think some politician is going to campaign on or vote for these laws? you are more whack than I thought. I heard a woman on the radio who adopted 3 or 4 drug addicted infants from the same mother. She started a program paying young addicts to get long term contraception. Seems like a better idea than forced abortions.
Laurie,
As I said, both Liberal and Conservative doom children to likely poverty. Just for different reasons.
Though my view regarding how to address welfare Mom's and Dad's who just will not stop making babies seems draconian... Please remember that I also support free and easily accessible long acting birth control for all.
Just curious, don't you ever get tired of putting the wants of adults ahead of the needs of unlucky children?
Be it the Teachers who demand more compensation and work rules, or the adults who bear children they can not afford or are not responsible enough to raise well?
I agree that everyone should have the right to have one or maybe two kids, but poor women with 3+ are not quite right in the head. And yet you would likely fight tooth and nail to let them keep having them.
Why do we pay good teachers so much less than bad shortstops? For myself, since I don't have an adequate answer to that question, I have a tough time explaining why teachers shouldn't get a raise.
--Hiram
In reverse order...
Hiram, even a bad shortstop makes the play 75% of time. A teacher who teaches only half her students to read at grade level deserves less than she is already getting. There are more good teachers than good shortstops, so while teachers overall get less, we could and should afford to give the truly good teachers more. But union rules prevent it.
John, it still concerns me that YOU are the one who gets to decide who is allowed to have kids, and how many.
I will admit, John, that not everyone is rational all of the time; your list of "beliefs" proves that. But I have always considered that, when creating policy, one must consider not only the purely rational but the emotional as well, because it is a very, very real consideration. For example, I would like to take a trip to Egypt. If someone offered to pay my fare, logic dictates I should go (because of my emotional desire to make the trip), but my concerns about terrorism and such-- not a rational concern based on numbers-- might prevent me from doing so. The "policy" I adopt-- accept the money or not-- did not depend on what that "neutral" person putting up the cash was incentivizing me to do. I claim nonetheless it was a rational decision, taking my emotions into account.
Jerry,
Let's check your rationale.
Immature Mom on welfare has 2 children from 2 different Dad's, and she thrives on the unconditional love that babies and young children bring to her. As the woman in the link says, "My children are what keep me going, every day," she says. "They give me a lot of hope and encouragement." So she is fine with making more babies.
How do you use your carrots to encourage her to focus on the 2 children she has and stop having more?
To avoid your usual distraction. Let's assume the first 2 baby daddies are dead or in jail. (ie unable to provide child support)
Here is another real life example for you to contemplate.
Wiki Michael Oher - The Blind Side
"Born Michael Jerome Williams, Jr., in Memphis, Tennessee, he was one of twelve children born to Denise Oher. His mother was an alcoholic and crack cocaine addict, and his father, Michael Jerome Williams, was frequently in prison. Due to his upbringing, he received little attention and discipline during his childhood. He repeated both first and second grades, and attended eleven different schools during his first nine years as a student. He was placed in foster care at age seven, and alternated between living in various foster homes and periods of homelessness. Oher's biological father was a former cell mate of Denise Oher's brother and was murdered in prison when Oher was a senior in high school."
Was Michael's Mom rational? How would you address this issue?
People don't have children because it's a rational choice.
--Hiram
even a bad shortstop makes the play 75% of time.
So frequent failure is a reason for high pay?
A teacher who teaches only half her students to read at grade level deserves less than she is already getting.
How much would a shortstop who batted .500 command on the open market?
--Hiram
Of course there are many rational reasons for having children.
But I can not come up with any good ones for having more children than you can afford to feed, clothe, house... or are capable to raise well...
"How do you use your carrots to encourage her to focus on the 2 children she has and stop having more?"
While I ponder that, I will ask "what sticks do you plan to use to accomplish those same ends?"
I would suggest that whatever incentives the government and society now offers, that have at least helped her make the choices she has made, be altered, so that the more positive responses are chosen. Suppose you educate her on birth control and how to care for her two existing children? Suppose you talk to her about their need for an education to succeed in life, and how she might get that for them?
Or, suppose, as many have suggested, that additional children born to welfare moms while there is "no man in the house" will not receive extra benefits, but that we will offer her birth control so that she can continue her wanton ways without adding additional kids to the mix. That she is probably damaging the kids with a series of "uncles" staying over is another case, and if we were really serious the "man in the house" would be responsible for ALL the kids.
"Was Michael's Mom rational? How would you address this issue?"
Not knowing otherwise, I would say yes on her original decision to take drugs, and probably not in her drug-addled state after that. Obviously she would have benefited substantially had some "better choices" been available to her, but neither of us knows that she did or did not have them.
And that is the problem with using anecdotes to set public policy. It seems to me that the most rational way to do it is to consider "the greatest good for the greatest number." Any policy we create is going to have people falling through the cracks, or exploiting loopholes, in the system, especially in big government bureaucratic solutions. Many of the private charities I work with try to help those that "the system" has already failed. Public policy Is created for the general case, and not to respond to any one individual. The only way to respond to individuals is by other individuals, as Sandra Bullock portrayed.
It is not up to YOU to decide how many children a couple can "afford to feed, clothe, house or raise well." It is simply not. Nor is it your prerogative to determine whether they have made that decision rationally or not. I must grant you that prerogative for yourself only, because it is not my place to say otherwise.
Anon,
Please sign your comments with some consistent name... And a real one is even better.
Jerry,
So your plan is to spend money on coaching her, training her and providing her with birth control? Please remember that these are things that you are against funding with tax dollars. How exactly do you imagine this happening?
And how exactly do you see this as not punishing the child(ren)?
"additional children born to welfare moms while there is "no man in the house" will not receive extra benefits"
Please remember that smart rational Parents only have the number of children they can afford to take care of well. People who make 3, 4, 5,..., 15 babies while impoverished are neither smart or rational. They are making an emotional decision or thoroughly irresponsible.
Here is an interesting piece.
"For more than 400,000 infants each year (about 10 percent
of all births), substance exposure begins prenatally (Young
et al., 2009). State and local surveys have documented
prenatal substance use as high as 30 percent in some
populations (Chasnoff, 2010). Based on NSDUH data from
2011 and 2012, approximately 5.9 percent of pregnant
women aged 15 to 44 were current illicit drug users.
Younger pregnant women generally reported the greatest
substance use, with rates approaching 18.3 percent
among 15- to 17-year-olds. Among pregnant women aged
15 to 44 years old, about 8.5 percent reported current
alcohol use, 2.7 percent reported binge drinking, and .3
percent reported heavy drinking (HHS SAMHSA, 2013a)"
Who would have figured there was such a high correlation between making babies and drinking/drugs. :-)
My point is that the policies need to address this sad reality. The Angels, Michael's Oher's Mom, etc are not the rarity you wish they were.
And I would like to see public policies that made such things a rarity. Obviously existing public policies have created the situation and, if not, then why do we expect public policy to fix it?
"So your plan is to spend money on coaching her, training her and providing her with birth control? Please remember that these are things that you are against funding with tax dollars. How exactly do you imagine this happening?"
Funny, I do not remember that at all. So what is your point? Do you remember that those who have jobs and gain some economic success have fewer children and are able to take better care of the ones they do have? By solving the problem of poverty-- IMHO brought about by flawed public policy-- you also permit the next generation to escape that poverty, which is what our policy SHOULD be doing. Perhaps we should be less concerned with poor folks making rational decisions, and more concerned that policy makers are not.
"And how exactly do you see this as not punishing the child(ren)?
'additional children born to welfare moms while there is "no man in the house" will not receive extra benefits'"
I see it as presenting them with a choice (before conception) that the current system does not offer. Few folks believe that the extra welfare benefit encourages additional kids, but it does not act as any sort of disincentive, either. We used to enforce the "no man in the house rule" and accepting a pregnancy when there is no man in the house is, in fact, an irrational policy. If it is known that no additional benefit is forthcoming AND if the man is expected to support the child, those are "incentives" to make better choices.
I find your answers totally lacking...
Here is another interesting link.
"The move to repeal family payment caps coincides with research that indicates the laws don’t reduce birthrates among those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Researchers also have found that the rules are harmful to children, cause lifelong damage to their learning and development, and increase the “deep poverty rate” of children by 13 percent.
“There was clear evidence it didn’t have the impact they’d hoped it would have,” said California state Assemblyman Donald Wagner, a Republican who supported repealing the cap but voted against the budget because of other provisions he didn’t like. “This was a policy that was proven to be counterproductive.”
"A teacher who teaches only half her students to read at grade level deserves less than she is already getting."
Again, why do you assume a poor teacher is a woman?
Anon,
Please sign your comments with some consistent name... And a real one is even better.
If not I will start making them all have that funny "comment has been removed" replacement text...
Why do you assume a poor teacher is a man? I chose a pronoun. Debate the idea if you like.
So, the "stick" doesn't work? It doesn't surprise me one bit. They don't even have to be organic carrots, the ordinary ones will do, and they are a lot cheaper.
Excuse me... You were just the one advocating the "no more money" stick.
"If it is known that no additional benefit is forthcoming AND if the man is expected to support the child, those are "incentives" to make better choices."
Could you please make up your mind???
But what I have suggested is not what the article describes, is it? It said there was a "cap" on benefits. No communication, no alternatives, no expectation of the man taking responsibility, and certainly no offer of your pet idea of free (or forced) contraception. A "cutoff of benefits" is a stick unless there is a carrot-- a rational alternative-- presented. And unfortunately just calling it a rational alternative isn't enough, because that's just your opinion. You're going to have to make it a more desirable one to get people to change their ways.
If people were rational, they wouldn't need incentives. The whole point of an incentive is to persuade people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.
--Hiram
You presume a universal and consistent definition of "rational." I suggest that it has much to do with personal experience, culture, and information processing style. See "the marshmallow test." In the current thread, how much faith do you believe multi-generational welfare recipients would put in the idea that their benefits (to which they are "entitled") might be curtailed? Would they likely react negatively, in defiance, or positively towards the desired behaviors? Wouldn't their negative reaction be rational, based on their experience?
Jerry the cap and "no more money" for extra babies laws have been on the books for decades and it did not help encourage people to find the rewards of work, personal self discipline and small families. These being some of the carrots you describe when Wisc chopped benefits.
My point is that the challenging population is not the rational folks. Remember...
"For more than 400,000 infants each year (about 10 percent of all births), substance exposure begins prenatally (Young et al., 2009). State and local surveys have documented prenatal substance use as high as 30 percent in some populations (Chasnoff, 2010)."
How many rationale caring Mothers would expose their infant to drug addiction and the long term problems related to it?
And these are the 400,000 young children who are often failing in the schools that you enjoy vilifying. No wonder "special needs" is so high in the urban districts.
You presume a universal and consistent definition of "rational."
Actually, I presume a subjective and narrow and inconsistent definition of rational. Incentives are imposed to further someone else's objectives, which may be their version of rational.
--Hiram
As tragic as your statistics are, a "rational" public policy should begin with those who are NOT these hardest of problems, but rather for the many (the 90% of all births) who might be amenable to having better choices, and yes, if you consider that there might be a "push and pull" situation to the policy, that still counts as a carrot in my book. For example, if you say "we are cutting your benefits if you have another child" that is a stick. If you say, "we will cut your benefits unless you find work, but we will help you find a job, find you child care, and you can keep your benefits in addition to what you earn" many people will make that choice. And many did. 80% in Wisconsin and 80% in Maine. Let's get the easy ones first, rather than hold up good policy until it can cover everybody (which isn't going to happen).
Unfortunately most of the 90% have jobs, are not on welfare and/or are doing fine in school... (ie no carrots or sticks required)
Remember what I said, someone who has babies they can not afford are by definition somewhat irrational, undisciplined and self centered.
By the way "push pull" equals "stick carrot". Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging that you support the use of pushes and sticks?
What I have a "hard time" with is the idea that these people just need more sticks. Some of them (like the 20% in Wisconsin) are gaming the system and basically do not need the freebies, so any "stick" pushes them quickly from the system. A proper use of the stick. Some, maybe 20-40%, are either temporarily down on their luck or just missing some sort of opportunity to get better. Public policy should focus first on identifying those individual obstacles and getting around them-- all carrots. That leaves about 40% of current recipients that are perhaps beset by multiple obstacles, including having their human dignity driven out of them by years or decades of dependence on government, and a mixture will be required, carrots first, though.
Perhaps the reason we are struggling so hard with the issue is that our current system is so FAR from the way it should be working it is hard to imagine getting from "here" to "there." I suspect that how we describe these new policies will vary widely, depending on where you are in life. As I have said repeatedly, I don't want to condemn people for making poor choices when they have not PERCEIVED that they HAVE choices.
That's good, I don't want to condemn them at all.
I want folks to acknowledge that many of these folks have NO IDEA how to succeed.
Many have had terrible childhoods.
Many have had poor role models.
Many have grown up on the dole.
Many have emotional baggage.
Many have failed in school.
Many have limiting belief systems.
Many have no hope.
Etc.
Just treating them like smart well adjusted rational self-disciplined mature adults is doomed to failure, they simply are not there yet. Please remember that age does not equal wisdom.
So how do we create policies that push them to learn, mature and improve while supporting them during the process? And of course this is even more challenging since there are so few good paying jobs for people like this...
50 years ago many of these folks could make a good living in a factory, now they can barely scrape by working the same number of hours or more. So I can understand how it is hard to get them to change... The carrots now days are pretty wilted.
so your views have progressed to accept that many/most poor people receiving govt assistance work many hours for low pay and you didn't even include a link to your favorite Pelosi (?) video. Good job John, (to give this compliment I am overlooking your suggestion for a policy of forced abortion for mothers you don't approve of.
My carrot / stick for these mothers who would be better off being responsible for 1-2 kids is free contraception. And I might throw in a scholarship account for extracurricular activities for their kid(s) if their family doesn't grow. ( I always feel bad for the kids who can't sign up for the basketball team.)
Laurie, thank you for your positive suggestions. I know that our school district already waives extracurricular fees for FRL students, but I don't know how helpful that would be if the school is unsafe for learning or even physical safety. Free contraception is a fine idea-- John has suggested it often-- but you have to assume a certain level of personal responsibility, self-esteem and self-control or it will lay on the floor unused. I would prefer to build up those character traits and THEN let them choose that for themselves. How? That is the big hurdle that John is describing, and it is the huge concern for me that we have very little time left to get this right. We want all these folks to have a job and contribute to the economy and do well by their kids, and by their attaining economic success they will have fewer kids and raise them better. But international competition and technology are quickly pushing us towards a time when we will have more people than there are jobs, and we cannot begin to deal with that world until we get this one "straightened out" and adjusted to the idea that the world doesn't owe anybody a living, that you are responsible for you AND your kids, and that the rest of us will work with you to make it possible, up to a point.
Maybe John is right, that the path "from here to there" (reform of the welfare system) needs to look like sticks for a while. After all, welfare reform via work requirements worked before. 20% of the rolls immediately in WI, 80% of food stamps in ME, 50% across the US until the program was un-reformed. Meanwhile, we have to quit turning out illiterate "victims" from our public schools. Education was supposed to be the great "equalizer" of opportunity and it seems to be just the opposite for too many. Now rather than blame the schools OR the parents, how about we figure out how to "carrot" both at the same time? I have heard rumors of schools (charters) that act as-- I am not sure of the moniker-- shall we say "holistic schools." They take each kid AND family, see to it that they are connected to all the needed services, employment opportunities, child care, after-school programs, remedial tutoring AND the regular education we want all kids to have. Again, so FAR from what we do today, but it's where we need to go. Wish I had a link, here.
"Just treating them like smart well adjusted rational self-disciplined mature adults is doomed to failure,..."
And obviously, treating them like idiot stepchildren fit only for breeding more government dependency doesn't work either. In order to make them responsible, you have to give them some responsibility, and to get them to accept that responsibility you have to make that the rational choice =in their world=. For example, we expect you to have a job, we will help you train for and get a job, and we will keep funding your benefits while you progress up that ladder. I would expect that to appeal to all but about 20% who, as you describe, have "no idea" about what it means to have a job; I've met a few.
Laurie,
My world is more gray than yours. I think their are people who need assistance and their are people who need a swift kick in the butt. And our current system does little to differentiate.
Jerry,
Many of them are like irresponsible idiot step children. The question is how do we accept that and help/pressure them to learn and grow?
That means stop feeding them like rabbits in a cage, and caring for them enough to force the to become independent and capable of caring for themselves.
Laurie,
I acknowledge that the US does not have enough good paying jobs. Remember that I am the one who supports:
- deporting the 11 million ILLEGAL Workers and
- pressuring people who say they want the best for American workers to actually put their money where their mouth is by Buying American.
- MN offering incentives to companies to have them build assembly plants here
It is the irrational Liberals who swear they want higher incomes while protecting ILLEGAL Workers, keeping business taxes high and "cheaping out"/spending their money on foreign workers, governments, etc.
I believe you have just suggested a proper analogy for our carrots vs. sticks debate.
We can deport 11 million illegal workers OR we can require employers to verify immigration status before giving out a job and penalize them for not checking. The jobs dry up and the "rational" choice for those illegals is to go home. Then I would add they can come back legally if they have a job waiting and the employer will "sponsor" them.
We can "pressure" people to buy American or we can change the taxes and regulations so American businesses become the low-cost producer in the US market, and everybody will buy American because it's the rational thing to do.
And by making America a great place to do business, say by dropping corporate taxes from the world's near-highest to the world's lowest, Companies will flock here to do business.
That's where we need welfare reform that offers people choices, better choices, and convinces them that those choices are better. Getting government to stop doing stupid stuff in welfare, just like in punishing corporations for being here, is the first step.
John supports the radical idea of forced abortion for women he doesn't approve of, yet see himself as the voice of moderation. people are so funny.
I don't think mandatory contraception is much better. And I'm thinking that maybe my experience with helping these poor folks directly has impressed upon me their humanity and individual human dignity, as beaten down (sometimes literally) as they may be. I remember taking in a stray cat, near frozen and injured, once, and with help and care it grew to be healthy (16 lb.!) and master of his domain. I did not blame it for its situation, nor for failing to find its way out of that situation.
Laurie,
Let's pick on Angel as a worse case example...
What do you think should be done?
And just a reminder... I offered 3 choices if a welfare Parent chooses to get pregnant after the first 2 that she can not afford in the first place...
Three choices work for me:
- mandatory contraception
- mandatory early term abortion
- mandatory adoption
And if she wants more kids... Just make more money and take personal responsibility for your children. Then you can have a keep as many kids as you want.
The irrational Liberal logic fascinates me again, they want children and families to become educated and escape poverty. Yet they fully support people having more children than they can afford to feed and responsibly care for.
Again, what do you want to do about Angel Adams, Michael Ohr's Mom and Women like them?
continuing to provide assistance to people who's behavior is irresponsible is much preferable to me than your mandatory options. (I am not against offering these choices for free.)
Some abuse of safety net programs is inevitable and no reason to defund them. My mean spiritedness leans towards no more than 2 bedroom housing at govt expense. Up to 4 children could easily share a bedroom with bunkbeds and mom can sleep on the couch.
Laurie,
I can somewhat live with the robbing Peter to pay for Angel and the kids to have basic food and housing.
But do you really think it is in any way being fair to those poor children?
You are all about protecting Angel and folks like her while dooming their unlucky kids to what is likely a very screwed up life.
I will never understand your concept of mercy.
"...our current system does little to differentiate."
And that is why government welfare, certainly as currently operated and as an "entitlement," is "unsuited to purpose." It's a massive case of good intentions paving a road. And switching people out of an "entitlement mentality," for those who have been conditioned to it, is going to be very difficult. And that is AFTER we get those many others who are easier into a better state.
Sorry, I got behind the conversation, and I agree with Laurie. I am never going to let John be the one to decide which parents are unfit to have or raise children, unless he works for Child Welfare Services and finds obvious signs of true abuse, in which case the kids should be removed from the home. Even then I would have my doubts. I would even ask, in the specific case of Angel, whether the local CWS has investigated and not acted, and if not, why not?
I think this desire to "mandatory" this and that comes from the perception that ALL of those on welfare are some sort of non-standard human being that must be hit with a stick to do what is, in reality, in the best interests of themselves and their kids. That we do not offer them better incentives and convince them it is in their interest, shame on us. That a few may be highly resistant should not prevent our helping the rest.
As for "non-standard human being", actually I think they are very normal human beings who have been raised in poverty by ineffectual immature adults. Therefore they are immature, unwise, needing love and highly dependent.
As I have said... I can somewhat live with the robbing Peter to pay for Angel and the kids to have basic food and housing.
The question is how do we accept their current state and help/pressure them to learn and grow?
What do you want to do about Angel Adams, Michael Ohr's Mom and Women like them?
Do you really think it is in any way being fair or good for their children?
All the vague generalities of we need to offer them better choices is great. Now who is going to pay for it and who is going to implement it? And remember that per the comment in the link... The Angel Adams of the world just want the money and not the guidance... This is also a normal human who thinks they know what is right.
There are few organizations like HCZ
Let's take this a little further... I think...
The Conservatives like Jerry want to cut the government funding and services to help these kids because they fear government control / influence. Even though history shows that charity is in no way up to the challenge.
The Liberals like Laurie want to massively increase the government funding in hopes that the government agencies will find some way to help the kids. Even though their efforts to date have decimated the 2 Parent families in the at risk groups and have not ended poverty. (ie they just hide it with free fish)
And while these adults bicker, whole generations of children continue to suffer because neither group wants to address the root cause of the problem... That being that people who can barely take care of themselves are being allowed to have as many children as they wish.
It is an interesting mess to be sure.
You cannot have it both ways. If they are normal human beings they cannot be "immature, unwise, needing love and highly dependent." That is not the normal state of human beings, and not even a desirable one except in children. Age is, unfortunately, not a sign of maturity, so those who have aged without "growing up" are going to need some help getting there. I contend that most of these welfare recipients-- probably 80% or so, still understand what "good values" are and try to follow them. They just need some help getting to the point where that pays the bills and keeps them and their kids safe.
As for the 20%, like Angel, you start at the bottom, requiring work of the childless, requiring fathers to be responsible for their illegitimate kids, putting a time limit on single parents, and then offering intense training and assistance to move them. CWS would be called in the "emergency" cases, and this would in some cases act as incentive, as well. All this would require an increase in the number of social workers, which could be funded by an expected rapid drop in caseload. Of course, the laws would have to be changed, and it would really help if we could reduce illegal competition for jobs and bring back US manufacturing from overseas, as well as reversing the "war on cops" and stopping crime in the poor neighborhoods.
"Even though history shows that charity is in no way up to the challenge."
Not content to offer up straw man arguments, some insist on setting them on fire. We have spent literally trillions of dollars in the War on Poverty, and poverty is as prevalent today as it was when we started 50-odd years ago. We know government doesn't work in the role of charity. You cannot say private charity will not work, because government has stepped into that role, vastly expanded it and removed all of the human element-- the expectations and the gratitude and true, individual help-- as well as all of the money that could drive it, from the equation. If government helped the 80% they could help to escape poverty, rather than sustaining them in it, and cancelled benefits for the remaining 20% AND cut taxes, are you going to pretend private charity would NOT help the few truly needy?
Jerry,
Of course normal human beings can be "immature, unwise, needing love and highly dependent." I think your definition of normal is probably very skewed. You do remember the Credit Score piece?
"Only about 20% of Americans that have a credit score land above the 780 mark, which is considered the top tier, according to credit reporting agency TransUnion. Even fewer are above the 800 mark."
And all one has to do get a high credit score is to be self disciplined and pay one's bills on time.
The unfortunate reality is that charity wasn't keeping up and that is why we have all these programs... Even ACA is a symptom of that charitable giving system failure. People can not afford healthcare, charity wasn't filling the void, so the Dems raised taxes on the rich again.
By the way, your Angel proposal sounds a lot like Laurie's Liberal proposal, now are you willing to fully fund parent education, early childhood education, job training, maybe higher minimum wages, etc Soon you will be voting for a Democrat. :-)
And while the Left and Right fight... People like Angel keep popping out kids they are poorly equipped to raise.
In simple words, no, I am not willing to fund all of those things because government tends to screw up everything it touches, and the solution to government screwing up the welfare system (and the education system) is not to give these stupid bureaucracies more work to do, to fix the problems they caused. I don't mind government funding these things, mind you, but I want to see RESULTS. Usually that means government funding and private, competitive delivery.
You are correct, however, that the left and right fight. But if the right proposed something really, really sensible, Democrats would fight it tooth and nail, and if the left proposed something really, really sensible ... nah, never happen.
Yes, but could private charity keep up if the "problem" was cut 90% or more?
No... One hundred years ago there was almost no government wealth transfer and people were suffering excessively. Ever since then Liberals and Conservatives have been fighting over the same topic. And the kids have suffered for it.
But I know... Having to take classes and pass a Parenting test... And having to prove that you can afford to feed and house your children... Are terribly irrational expectations. :-)
And a hundred years ago we weren't pumping CO2 into the air at such a fantastic rate. Fortunately the addition of atmospheric CO2 has led to an increase in the standard of living, and suffering has been reduced. And just think, we did it for free, with no government wealth transfer! Sorry, but paying people to not work is irrational. Getting paid to not work is the rational choice if you are given the option.
And by the way, 100 years ago the great philanthropic organizations were launched by rich guys transferring their OWN wealth to charity, just as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have done in modern times. They didn't give it to government, did they?
I see pros/cons to the actions of both the Liberals and Conservatives...
Now we are back to causation vs correlation...
Personally I think increasing government control of the economy from 7% to 33% was good for our country...
Unfortunately the Left seems to think giving even more will offer the same benefits where as I see it causing big problems.
And of course the hard core Conservatives like yourself suffer from nostalgia. All the while forgetting the tent cities, soup lines and impoverished old folks.
The reality is that we can not know if our country's swing to the left was good or bad. My guess is that it was both good and bad... Like most things.
Quote without comment:
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/births-financed-by-medicaid/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
John, as to your last comment, I think there is an optimum point of government control, perhaps measured easiest by the amount of total spending it does, but running much deeper than that through regulations, etc. So whether the "swing left" was "good or bad" depends on which side of that optimum you believe we are at this point. I happen to believe we are FAR to the right of that optimum, where the cost/benefit of all this spending (and control) is sub-optimum and decreasing. YMMV.
Post a Comment