Jerry shared the following very important comment.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Also, safe travels for those of you who are going over the river and through the woods!!!
For your enjoyment from Jingle Bell Junction
54 comments:
so I guess the phrase Happy Holidays is intended for your liberal readers who participate in the war on Christmas :) I even have a link about the Christmas story, from the perspective from a Unitarian minister.
Christmas: A Revolutionary Story
I was thinking of making my adult children read it as they are very much secular/ agnostic / apatheist. (We thought we had invented that last word to describe their belief in God, but it is actually a real word.) About some liberals and religion, I find it a bit offensive when some liberals mock Christianity, which can be seen somewhat frequently on a site likely daily kos. I call that fundamentalist atheism.
"Fiction or nonfiction, it’s the same story. The story of Love as revolutionary force for good. It doesn’t matter if the story is full of factual details or not. The story’s job isn’t to get us to believe virgins can have babies. The story’s job is to tell us that everyone deserves dignity and respect, even those people others would have us leave out. The story’s job is to tell us Love shows up in strange places, in strange clothes, and may not be what we were looking for. The story’s job is to tell us as powerful as hate and empire and violence and oppression may seem to be, they are not going to win. The story tells us Love has arrived and Love is going to win. Whenever and however the story is told, Love wins. That’s the story and that’s still revolutionary."
From MP Never Trumpers
"If one is to condemn those who seek government assistance in so wealthy a nation, be it be the poorest of the poor, please go all the way and condemn Corporate welfare also in the same hot breath for the sake of consistency?
Then too, do note, the majority celebrate a Christian holiday; poster child for a day, 'the least of these" as some old scribe once said.
,,,and in all due respect my I recall an old rhyme:
Blessed Mary meek and mild...
Do remember.
J.C was a "welfare child'? b j-k" Beryl
As is often the case, my response to Beryl did not get through moderation... However it seems appropriate here also.
When the Liberals speak of helping everyone, I think of scenes from the movie Titanic. Many people died because there was not enough space in the lifeboats. Should those folks in the life boats have invited everyone in? What would the result have been? Should the woman have pulled the man on to the piece of debris that was barely supporting her?
Now as you know I support helping people to help themselves... To do this we need to get more jobs in America, more educated / skilled employees who want to work, incapable Parents to have fewer children, higher wages for those employees, and then we can keep bringing in immigrants at an increasing controlled rate. Just arbitrarily taking money from successful citizens and giving it to unsuccessful citizens is like a leak in our life boat.
As for Jesus being a "welfare child":
- he had 2 "parents" / care givers
- the stable was an act of charity by the inn keeper
- I am assuming Rome had little in the way of welfare for the people who lived in Israel.
As for corporate welfare, please give examples of where a company gets money from the government for doing nothing. Usually deductions, credits and payments requires some behavior, product or service.
As for Love, it works in mysterious ways. Here is one of my comments from the same link.
"My goal is for the USA to eliminate the educational achievement gap and generational poverty problems. Maybe that is selfish since it would make the USA a much better and stronger country for my children and someday grand children.
The challenge of course is that to do so, many people who are lacking knowledge, have self limiting beliefs, lack self discipline, make bad decisions, etc will need to learn, change and improve which is not easy.
Think of a good Teacher who is facing a child who is struggling to be successful in class. Should the Teacher who truly cares for the student let them continue the behaviors that are causing them to struggle and just give them passing grade?
Or should the Teacher pressure / motivate the Child to learn, change and improve in order to earn that passing grade?
If the child fails to change and improve, thus failing to learn the material adequately... Should the caring Teacher just pass the student anyway?"
Since I love my daughters dearly: should I buy them stuff and give them money whenever they get low on funds? If they do stupid things should I immediately bail them out?
The answer from my perspective is "No Way !!!"
I love my Daughters so much that I have spent my whole life working hard to prepare them to be independent adults. At times they have been very angry at their Parents or frustrated because of one of our lessons.
I have no doubt that Liberals think they were doing good and showing their love during the war on poverty... But I think they were acting like Parents who give children money no matter what they do. And we know what happens often in those cases... The kids end up behaving irresponsibly, dependent on Mom and Dad, and lacking in money management skills...
The question I always ask liberals is, "on whom did Christ put responsibility for the poor? Certainly not the government." If you, Mr. or Ms. Liberal, want the poor to be cared for, YOU do it. Give money or time or both to the homeless shelter, or some other. They need it, and you can see that your gift goes directly to the need. Do NOT take it from somebody else through government force and believe you are doing good.
As always, I am torn on that one... Unfortunately reality has shown us that there are too many selfish people on both sides of the equation.
- too few people will follow the tithing concept and therefore charity can not support the needy.
- too many charitable people are very judgmental and limit who receives the funds.
- too many charitable people count their Church as a Charity, when maybe only 50% of the money goes to help others.
- too many "needy" people are just lazy / irresponsible folks who want someone to bear the negative consequences of their actions, and/or pay their bills.
G2A Welfare is Not Charity
G2A God Works in Mysterious Ways
Now if people were more truly charitable with open hearts, and people were more personally responsible... Maybe it would be easier.
"If you, Mr. or Ms. Liberal, want the poor to be cared for, YOU do it."
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We ARE doing it. You just don't like it.
Joel
OK, Joel, maybe "we" are doing it, but you are not. How big of a check did YOU write, above the taxes you owed, and whom did you designate to receive that money? I didn't write an additional check to the IRS, either, but I DID exceed a tithe in total charitable giving, directly to various charities.
And your statement is flawed. The problem with welfare is that it is from "the people," at least those who pay taxes, but it does not go to "the people" rather to individual recipients. It is not done "by the people," either, but by a vast bureaucracy who cares neither about where the money comes from or where it goes. It is grossly inefficient and certainly is not charity.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…” —James Madison
John, perhaps I can help with your quandary. Your objections:
- too few people will follow the tithing concept and therefore charity can not support the needy. Let us assume, for argument, that every dollar currently spent on welfare was left in the pockets of the taxpayers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the same amount of money, directed to individual charities (and beyond the billions already freely given), would achieve far more benefit on both sides?
- too many charitable people are very judgmental and limit who receives the funds. You need to distinguish between charity and welfare. Welfare fails because it is NOT judgmental enough. It is an "entitlement." I am familiar with a number of charities, for example the Catholic Transitional Housing Program. They do not turn anyone away, but they have rules-- no drugs, no booze, you must take educational advice and look for work. What's wrong with that?
- too many charitable people count their Church as a Charity, when maybe only 50% of the money goes to help others. Sorry, you are wrong. Government says church is a charity, regardless of where the money goes (thus the "mail order minister" market). But everything sent to the church goes to help the members of that church in untold ways, and some goes outside the church as well. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
- too many "needy" people are just lazy / irresponsible folks who want someone to bear the negative consequences of their actions, and/or pay their bills. And that is why you want charity, rather than government welfare. I worked with a group for a while who took on cases who were /rejected/ by the welfare office. In one case, we helped the family with food, clothing, shelter, child care and medical care UNTIL we were able to find the man a new job (about 5 months). Then we went on to another case. Charity works, welfare doesn't, and throwing money at the problem of poverty is FAR less effective (and far MORE costly) than targeting it to those who are willing to help themselves.
jerry-
As a typical Conservative, you don't understand how government of the people, by the people, for the people works. You don't believe in it. A budget is a moral document, in that it shows what we prioritize. Yes, there are Constitutional requirements, such as defense, but there is, I believe, wide leverage in understanding what it means to provide for the general welfare (small w). We get to decide as a people, through representative democracy, what our collective money is used to fund. If we want it to fund war and violence, it will fund war and violence. If we want it to fund the protection and support of our vulnerable citizens, it will fund the protection and support of our vulnerable citizens. So, as you can see, what we collectively spend our money on tells us what we value as a citizenry. Needless to say, I find Conservative values, in this regard, abhorrent.
Joel
Jerry
- History shows that not enough people gave freely. That contributed to the need to develop the current welfare / medicaid mess we have today.
- I still think too many "Holier than thou" folks place too many restrictions on their charitable giving. (ie must be certain race, community, religion, sexual orientation, etc)
- Yes the gov't sees churches as charities, but a lot of churches are more like social clubs / gyms, and a lot of the funds go to pay for the buildings and personnel. It is fortunate that the Churches had a lot of sway when those laws were created.
- I think both have their place, but I agree that charity is much more efficient and effective.
Joel,
Protecting our disabled and vulnerable is good for our society.
Creating a dependent underclass that has forgotten how to be independent and provide for themselves is very bad for our society.
"Creating a dependent underclass that has forgotten how to be independent and provide for themselves is very bad for our society."
It's hard to disagree with that. But what does the broader Conservative voice say about those who need help and get it from the People (Government)? Perhaps if these folks were simply helped and not continually demonized things would be able to change?
Joel
"there is, I believe, wide leverage in understanding what it means to provide for the general welfare (small w)."
I believe it would be more correct to say that there have been great liberties taken with that understanding. Sending a check to Iggy the Indigent is not the general welfare. It does not enhance the well-being of the society as a whole and in fact does the opposite. It expends resources on an element of society that does not contribute back to it. Now if by intelligent effort government could create a system which actually helped those individuals wanting to help themselves, with the object of getting them to individual self-sufficiency as quickly as practical, this atypical conservative would give it a chance. I do not believe the typical liberal would do the same.
"One of the consequences of such notions as 'entitlements' is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." --Thomas Sowell
"Iggy the Indigent"
Thanks for elevating the conversation.
You couldn't have more accurately portrayed the contempt that Conservatives have for the poor and unfortunate.
And your Sowell quote only proves that he is also a Conservative. Nothing less...and certainly nothing more.
Joel
Joel, typical liberal. You dismiss truth and reason just because someone is a "conservative." Who is more in contempt of the poor and unfortunate, those who want to give them somebody else's money through a third-party, so long as they stay poor and unfortunate, or someone who gives their own time and money directly to those in need, and who believes they can succeed on their own merit with a little help?
Joel,
I am fine acknowledging that there are many people who truly made good decisions and still need help.
Can you agree that there are many people who's bad choices are enabled by the welfare system, and/or are taking advantage of us tax payers?
I will agree that safety net programs do not work perfectly and there is a fair amount of abuse of these programs. Sometimes I am even a little bit harsh about providing to generous of housing assistance to people. I worked with a single mother a while back who lived in a one bedroom apt, with the bedroom shared by her children while she slept on her couch. I don't think anyone in public housing needs bigger than a 2 bedroom apt, as one bedroom could hold 3-4 kids if needed.
That said, I think the beneficiaries of much govt assistance are children and I can live with imperfect programs that try to make sure that kids have housing, food and medical care.
John-
Yes, there are many people who's bad choices are enabled by government and/or are taking advantage of us tax payers.
Why do you think it's the poor?
Joel
'You dismiss truth and reason just because someone is a "conservative."'
No. I dismiss Sowell's quote because it betrays the typical Conservative ideology of contempt for the poor and unfortunate while attempting to sound reasoned.
Joel
Laurie,
As long as you are ok with treating a symptom and encouraging people to make more poor and academically failing kids, then you are on the correct track. I would prefer to remove the children from irresponsible and broke "baby makers". At least then there is a possibility of breaking the cycle.
Joel,
You are so funny... Apparently you believe that poor people are more honest, moral and law abiding than wealthier people. I kind of doubt it... Personally I think there are law abiding, law breaking, hard working and free loading people in all human groups.
And I think that the pressure to take bigger risks is greater when you have less to lose and more to gain. This may explain why the violent US gangs consist of poor young minorities.
Now do you really believe that these communities will have high gang membership and low welfare abuse? That there is some moral compass that allows for the violent path and disapproves of the less violent one?
Joel, you miss the point of Sowell's quote. He was criticizing entitlements, not helping the poor to escape poverty. Government entitlements do not work as welfare does because it takes the human element out of it. Those funding it do not have the chance to help in positive and effective ways because they never even know who gets the money, and the poor have no incentive to better themselves because they have no gratitude for what they are given. If government went back to the "social worker" model of direct individual assistance, it might work better, at least. And once again, you object to truly helping the poor because some horrible conservative, whose motives you ascribe simply on that basis, proposes it. You cannot defend the current system but refuse to try something better. The War on Poverty is over, and Poverty won.
Laurie, I have worked with a few "transitional housing" programs over the years, run by private charity of one sort or another. The typical "client" is a battered woman and her kids. She has no skills, kids to look after, and some emotional issues to grapple with. These programs provide a home, food until she can get food stamps, and furniture. The typical stay is 6-9 months during which we find her (some training and) a job, help her save the first and last month's rent for an apartment, and she (usually) gets to keep the furniture. Compare that to some of these folks who have been on welfare for generations, legitimately perhaps, but still taking that check and seemingly with no ability to escape to better. Which would you prefer to fund?
about "I would prefer to remove the children from irresponsible and broke "baby makers" so you are going to take children from a poor parent and put them in foster care or up for adoption? our imperfect patchwork of welfare spending seems vastly superior and more moral to me.
America’s concern for the poor is about to be tested
Laurie,
Some interesting links about these "Baby Makers" that you seek to protect and enable.
Circle of Moms
Yahoo Why Keep Having Babies
Harvard Guns or Babies
Quora Why
Please remember that I am not being critical of the young woman who has 1 or 2 children from the same father and needs help. I am talking about the group of Baby Makers who are simply not mature or capable of being good parents.
Some data from Heritage about Single Parents and Welfare
Laurie,
If you have any ideas for reducing the number of kids by those who are too immature, broke, etc. I am up for trying it. Thoughts?
John, you keep insisting that those who make poor choices do so because they are some inferior species with no human values. Instead of condemning those who make a mistake, why not try to help them, by teaching them better decisions, insisting on responsible behavior and offering them better choices? In my experience the vast majority KNOW how they are supposed to live, but have not been able to do it.
We shouldn't worry about "reducing the number of kids." Mandatory abortion, like China's policy, works fine for that. Instead, we should be trying to "save" the kids we have, by saving their parents from welfare dependency and hopelessness.
Well a Judge thought that someone teaching Angel Adams how to give a blowjob may help.
Oh I forgot that is a method by which she may stop having babies that is unable to care for... So in some strange world that is a bad idea...
Now Jerry are you volunteering to go help Angel learn how to make better decisions?
As for "those who make poor choices do so because they are some inferior species with no human values." I have a several ideas why this happens, but inferior species is not one of them.
Here are a few that make sense to me:
- Men who want to get laid.
- Women who want to get laid or are "in love".
- Men/ Women who drink and/or do drugs.
- Women who can not afford or are too irresponsible regarding birth control.
- Immature women who want a baby to be loved by.
- etc
More data regarding unintended pregnancies.
" Two-thirds (68%) of U.S. women at risk for unintended pregnancy use contraceptives consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year; these women account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies. In contrast, the 18% of women at risk who use contraceptives inconsistently or incorrectly account for 41% of all unintended
pregnancies. The 14% of women at risk who do not practice contraception at all or who
have gaps of a month or more during the year account for 54% of all unintended pregnancies
(see graph).
Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want
and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2013, these services helped women avoid two million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about one million unintended births and nearly 700,000 abortions.
Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions occurring in the United States would be 60% higher.
The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2010, the nationwide public investment in family planning services resulted in $13.6 billion in net savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and a range of other negative reproductive health outcomes, such as HIV and other STIs, cervical cancer and infertility.
In the absence of the current U.S. publicly funded family planning effort, the public costs of unintended pregnancies in 2010 might have been 75% higher."
Now let's test your theory.
"why not try to help them, by teaching them better decisions, insisting on responsible behavior and offering them better choices?"
Over the years I have only heard solution from you. Teach them to not have sex until they are married. And you have been adamantly against funding planning centers and free birth control like Planned Parenthood provides.
And if they are so irresponsible as to have sex and get pregnant, your theory is that somehow they will be responsible capable Parents who should have full control over their children's education. And you resist the idea that government should pay for early childhood education.
Then once you have kept these poor children with these irresponsible adults for 5 years, you blame the Public schools for not being able to help the kids catch up with all their more fortunate peers. And you insist that the Parents should not be graded or held accountable for their incompetency / neglect by our system's trained professionals.
Now let's remember that I am focused on these babies.
"In contrast, the 18% of women at risk who use contraceptives inconsistently or incorrectly account for 41% of all unintended pregnancies. The 14% of women at risk who do not practice contraception at all or who have gaps of a month or more during the year account for 54% of all unintended pregnancies."
The 32% of women (and associated men) who create 95% of the unintended pregnancy through irresponsible behavior. I mean they can not even use birth control consistently and/or correctly.
"The 32% of women (and associated men) who create 95% of the unintended pregnancy through irresponsible behavior. I mean they can not even use birth control consistently and/or correctly."
That is a staggering figure, if true. And there are people in this country, like jerry, who fight any attempt to educate people if it isn't abstinence-only. Frightening.
Joel
You are focused on these babies? How, by preventing them from being born? It seems as if you want to label any unintended pregnancy results from AND IN irresponsible parenting, and that's terribly patronizing as well as wrong. Sure, there are some that fit your categories of inferiority such as "wanting to get laid," but you have not explained WHY this is their outlook.
It is a bit late to teach Angel the notion of personal responsibility, and part of the reason she hasn't learned it is because somebody-- "Uncle Sugar"-- has always been there to look after the kids FOR her (none of them appear to be starving). Responsibility has to be learned and then practiced. If someplace along the line the Angel's Baby Daddy had been held financially responsible, or if Angel had been required to work for what she received, or even been taught the very idea of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, she would not be the poster child for public welfare's failure.
It is no doubt too late for Angel, and probably for many of her children, unless somehow the public schools-- the only direct contact "society" will have with them other than the rampant sex and violence on TV-- impart some better values and provide them the educational opportunity to escape poverty, both spiritual and economic.
Back to what I have been saying, that government controls the schools and they SHOULD be held responsible for results; that could be easily "fixed" [we know how] with the political will. Human behavior, on the other hand, has been ingrained now for 40 years and is NOT likely to change readily with government action. We should start immediately, but it will be a generation before we can get "back on track." With white illegitimacy rates now higher than the black illegitimacy rates of the 60s when Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that such would prevent black success in society, we must.
And I have to ask, do you really want to help these folks, or just tell them how low-life irresponsible they are?
"failure to use birth control properly or consistently" does not sound like something a free-love approach to sex ed is going to solve. They KNOW what it is and how to use it yet somehow do not. Abstinence is 100% effective, if they can learn it. People are irresponsible only because they have not been told what responsible behavior is, and why, and what the consequences of it ARE (now largely absorbed by government "entitlement" and fostered by lack of other opportunities).
Jerry,
Well at least you are consistent in your interesting perspective...
"All parents should be trusted to raise their children right."
"The government should not have the power to influence this..."
"People are irresponsible only because they have not been told what responsible behavior is"
Do you truly believe this stuff?
That somehow the school's preaching abstinence more than they already do is going to stop poor not so smart young people from hooking up and making babies?
Please remember that many of these folks are the same students who don't listen to the Teachers and other authority figures in the first place.
Jerry,
So how would you have held Angel Adams or other similar "Baby Makers" accountable?
How would you hold the "in jail" or "broke" Baby Daddies accountable?
Preferably without harming their innocent children.
Corrections, please.
All parents should be EXPECTED to raise their children right (and should have been given some of that information in school). /WE/ had it. I believe almost every parent WANTS what is best for their kids, don't you?
The government should not have the power to INTERVENE in this except in dire circumstance. In particular, they should not be relieving the parent of responsibility through cash incentives or through relief from moral judgments.
People are irresponsible only because they have been given no ethical, moral or practical reason to be responsible. "If you have a baby it will love you and the government will give you money and your own apartment." Do you see any perverse incentives here?
As for Sex Ed, everything depends on how it is taught. If the teacher teaches abstinence without a moral/ethical/practical "self esteem" basis, and then indicates "we know you are going to do it anyway, so let's talk about condoms," you know the kids ARE going to hear only that latter part of it. Now of course appeals to morality are more effective when it corresponds to what has been taught at home. We don't have any teen unwed mothers from the sex ed classes offered at our church. Somehow we need to break the cycle.
So again...
Jerry,
So how would you have held Angel Adams or other similar "Baby Makers" accountable?
How would you hold the "in jail" or "broke" Baby Daddies accountable?
Preferably without harming their innocent children.
Taking risks to pursue
the American dream
"So how would you have held Angel Adams or other similar "Baby Makers" accountable?"
First, Angel is obviously an extreme case. There is almost certainly no hope for her as an individual case, at this point. Let us take a less extreme version of Angel, however, call her Angel2. First, we hop into our Wayback Machine to Angel2's Mom. When Angel2 was conceived, Baby Daddy2 was informed he was responsible for the financial support of Angel2. They were going to have to work out how to do it, somehow. Medicaid would attend to prenatal care and delivery if they (notice) filed soon. Their parents could help if they wanted and could. The Welfare worker was available to help them find jobs or training or child care and teach baby care. When Angel2 turned 5, she got a voucher to go to a "good school" somewhere in the neighborhood, got a good education and had "self-management" drilled into her all throughout. She graduated to a good job, met a nice young man, married and started a family-- 4 kids because she loves children. Now, back to the present day. Angel3 is about to be born. Is the government going to treat her as Angel2 was, or as Angel was?
"How would you hold the "in jail" or "broke" Baby Daddies accountable?"
First of all, "in jail" Baby Daddies do not make babies. Had either they or "broke BD" known they would be legally burdened with the financial responsibility, they might not have fathered the child at all, but most certainly would have learned something (along with Mama) about responsibility. They should have major help getting a job, leaving them far less time for crime or for Baby Daddy-ing.
"Preferably without harming their innocent children."
There are all kinds of harm. You yourself have repeatedly stated that you believe irresponsible parents harm their child greatly. So you should be all in favor of some program that uses more "carrots" than "sticks" to offer opportunities for parents to be responsible, and helping them to make better choices after their one "mistake." The goal of government should be to get the family functioning for the betterment of the kids, not to punish the kids to force the parents to miraculously do better.
I think that is the goal of government...
Unfortunately some people are resistant.
Laurie, that's another excellent cite, even if it is from the highly biased Strib. I think it gets two things, at least, correct.
1) Just picking up folks from the North Side and plopping them into an outer suburb's "Affordable Housing" doesn't do a blessed thing. We have one of those developments near here, and the number of police calls is TWELVE TIMES the total in the rest of the city. I've talked to the School's math specialist, and she informs me that, try as they might, they cannot get these kids up to where those raised here are, blaming it on "attitude towards learning" rather than learning disabilities of any sort.
2) The notion that black kids can't learn unless they sit next to white kids in school should have been thoroughly discredited in the old days of forced busing, just like the idea now that black kids can't learn because they sit next to black kids in school. It's insulting and simply amounts to, as confirmed in the story, "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
"I think that is the goal of government..."
So does government, and therein lies the problem. They think that good intentions make good policy and dismiss the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And simply by the nature of government, it produces costly, one-size-fits-all solutions (or non-solutions) rather than individually-tailored help as private charity does.
"First, we hop into our Wayback Machine to Angel2's Mom. When Angel2 was conceived, Baby Daddy2 was informed he was responsible for the financial support of Angel2. They were going to have to work out how to do it, somehow."
And if they have no money and/or Daddy2 goes to jail... What will you do? Will Angel 2 be homeless and hungry?
And if Angel2 / Parent's refuse to do homework, listen in class, behave in class, etc... What will you do?
As with today's welfare and education system, things go pretty good when the Parent's are compliant, mature, etc. It is the following immature, risk taking, non-compliant folks who challenge all systems. That is unless you think they have not been taught regularly that abstinence or regular birth control are REAL Important...
"In contrast, the 18% of women at risk who use contraceptives inconsistently or incorrectly account for 41% of all unintended pregnancies. The 14% of women at risk who do not practice contraception at all or who have gaps of a month or more during the year account for 54% of all unintended pregnancies."
Where exactly were these in your proposals?
"all in favor of some program that uses more "carrots" than "sticks" to offer opportunities for parents to be responsible, and helping them to make better choices after their one "mistake.""
I am pretty sure these Parents have access to Job Placement, Job Training, Subsidized Childcare, school choice to charters / magnets/ community schools / open enrollment, etc already.
Exactly what new carrots are you dangling before them other than one more version of school choice?
I think you and I have vastly different views of the nature, magnitude and solutions to this problem.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of new parents want what is best for their kids. You think most of them are irresponsible and would either place millions of kids in foster homes or sterilize millions of women so these kids are never born.
I believe that the current welfare system fails to provide the individual, caring assistance that people need to help them find their way out of poverty, while it rewards irresponsibility and penalizes responsibility. You seem to think that those trapped in welfare are there because they CHOOSE to be there.
You believe that poor kids cannot learn, regardless of the school, and that current school choices are adequate. I believe that the facts show otherwise, both that kids can do better in schools geared to helping the whole child, and that given a realistic choice, parents will choose those schools.
In short, you seem to be insisting that nothing can change unless we eliminate these "undesirables," and defend the status quo as being the best we can do without such drastic steps. I happen to think that the current system is an obvious failure and that, knowing its failings, we can do better.
It seems in your haste to critique and mis-state my views that you forgot to answer my questions...
I'll probably create a new post to continue the discussion.
I dispute the premise of your questions. Angel2 will not be hungry and homeless because her parents want the best for her, and the new welfare system will help those parents to achieve it. Now, that one kid in the next block with the crackhead mom and gangsta Baby Daddy, that is the very limited exception, and we do not design our systems based on the few exceptions.
Angel2's parents WILL help with homework, etc., because they want the best for her, and Angel2 knows that she is expected to do well and that the "system" is there to help her succeed.
The "new carrots" are simply the carrots they were promised that have not been delivered. REAL school choice and effective education, real job training and placement, personal counseling, direct financial aid to sustain them while they advance in pay, and respect as human beings.
Remember our favorite saying... The Path to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions...
I have no doubt that most people want the best for the sweet little baby that they are holding in their arms. This in no way means that they are mature, determined, capable, responsible, self disciplined and/or knowledgeable enough to provide it.
Especially when they have:
- few academic capabilities or skills
- low paying jobs, need to pay for daycare
- work strange hours/ short shifts / may not find child care
- only one Parent in household
- lack of consistent reliable birth control
As I keep saying, raising kids well with 2 Parents is hard. Doing it with one parent is very hard.
Someplace we are not communicating. I agree that good intentions are not enough, but we must acknowledge those good intentions exist. Both conservatives and liberals want to help the child, but conservatives believe in those parental good intentions and want to help these parents fulfill their willing obligation-- restoring the family structure if possible. Liberals seem to believe that THEY have all the good intentions, and insist that someone else pay for the paving job. They don't seem to care where the road goes.
I like your locution about 2 parents & 1 parents. It is even harder with government as the only parent.
Let me try to be more clear. Yes, people have kids who don't know how to raise them-- NONE of us do. Some people also lack the skills needed to succeed economically, so the question becomes why "we" do not help them to gain those skills, rather than handing them a government check and complaining that they lack those skills? My favorite liberal, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said, "The greatest social change of the 20th century was the replacement of a viable economic unit, the two-parent family, with two non-viable economic units." and "The principal objective of American government at every level should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so."
Post a Comment