I am always fascinated by the desire of most people to defend their beliefs no matter what... I assume it has a lot to do with:
Some of the examples I face regularly are:
And I suppose I could go on... But I think that is enough... Why do you think people are:
- a person's self confidence and sense of worth?
- it is just hard to acknowledge inconsistencies in their belief systems?
Some of the examples I face regularly are:
- Human life is critical, so all abortions must be made illegal. And yet the same people absolutely refuse to discuss how to fix our terrible child abuse and neglect issue. Or the related poverty and motherhood issue. Or the US having higher infant mortality levels because of our broken systems.
- Giving people "free" money and services with no expectations is good. And yes it is a complicated story but insisting that we just keep handing out money?
- Saying that Trump is a great President with excellent character. These folks who are often Bible Banger Conservatives seem to be able to, or "need" to block out all of his past / present sins and flaws. I mean the man had 3 wives, and had sex with a porn star while his current wife was still at home with their new born infant... He brags of grabbing the pussies of unsuspecting women... How do they rationalize this with great character? I can vote for slime like him if it is the less bad option, but I do so with open eyes.
- Insisting that the US allow millions of the world's impoverished to come to the USA as our poor still languish. Really?
And I suppose I could go on... But I think that is enough... Why do you think people are:
- so invested in their beliefs?
- unwilling to discuss the inconsistencies?
- so emotional when challenged?
79 comments:
Human nature cannot be changed by law or government fiat.
If you aren't willing to defend what you believe, what's the point of believing it? I suppose it's possible to believe indefensible things, but that's not something I would recommend.
--Hiram
Saying that Trump is a great President with excellent character.
I can see the argument for the greatness of President Trump from a certain perspective. For single issue voters on the pro-life issue, he has delivered on the issue that matters to them. Any failings he may have on other issues are simply irrelevant.
I don't think any significant portion of the population thinks Trump is a man of excellent character. Just as I don't think anyone who is reasonably well informed on the matter think Trump is an excellent businessman. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. The difference is, Trump supporters believe lack of character and lack of business success don't matter, and given their perspective, I can't say they are wrong.
--Hiram
One of the fascinating things to me about our current discourse is how different people's attitudes are toward charges of hypocrisy and double standards. The right is constantly even reflexively accusing the left of hypocrisy. When any right wing political figure does something questionable, right wing data miners immediately sift through the databases to find some left winger who has done something comparable, and then they hypocrisy double standard, argument is made.
But the reverse, charges of hypocrisy toward the right aren't made as often and are hardly ever effective. Take abortion. One thing I have noticed in watching a lot of tv coverage over the years is that pro life women tend to have a lot of abortions. They are featured prominently at the rallies. This is pretty obviously hypocritical, but it doesn't seem to matter at all. People like me who are pro choice, can't really criticize those women, because we support their right to choose, and we respect the choices, however difficult, women make. And on the right, no one seems to recognize the blatant hypocrisy on display, or if they do, don't seem in any way affected by it.
--Hiram
The thing that I bump up against more than people being intransigent in their belief is the inconsistency of that belief
The most recent is of course yet another cash handout to farmers. Why is it bad when a single mother with two kids needs welfare money? Why the laws to drug test recipients? But more so: Why then no demanding that we drug test farmers? Why do the same people think it’s a good thing to give farmers a handout. How do we know they’re not buying steak and lobster? Or cigarettes or whatever nonsense other welfare recipients get accused of?
Moose
Wealth redistribution is something Republicans hate when Democrats do it, but have no problem in doing themselves.
Tariffs, a Republican word for taxes, in this case hurt farmers, an important Trump constituency. So the billions of dollars paid by urban non Trump supporters must be shifted to farmers in order that they will continue their support for The Donald.
--Hiram
Jerry,
And yet religious right conservatives are determined to try.
Hiram,
I think you would be amazed at how strongly the human mind will work to prevent a person from seeing the whole truth...
And hypocrisy is a little different... A lot of people do that...
Are there really whole truths?
--Hiram
Why do some people believe that kids should be hungry, homeless, and lacking healthcare when there parents are not paid an adequate wage to properly care for them.
Why do some people believe that wages should be paid to someone that does nothing to earn them? Why do some people believe that children cannot be properly cared for unless government provides somebody else's material wealth to them?
Why do some people believe that wages should be paid to someone that does nothing to earn them?
I think Trump's dad did for tax reasons.
--Hiram
Laurie,
The question I posed was giving people money with no expectations of them...
What do you think recipients should be expected to do for that investment of tax payer dollars?
I think "expectations" is a reasonable word for it, but more importantly I think people need to be "led out of" poverty. Obviously something has gone wrong in their personal economic situation, whether from bad decisions on their part or misfortune of some kind. That is why I advocate for a private charity model for welfare, where one-on-one solutions to those individual problems can be found and implemented.
Your question was dumb and based on wrong assumptions.
"Most SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and because many workers turn to SNAP when they are between jobs, more than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP."
Do you object to low incoming working people receiving SNAP assistance?
Why do believe low income working people should be denied access to health care?
"Among Medicaid adults (including parents and childless adults — the group targeted by the Medicaid expansion), nearly 8 in 10 live in working families, and a majority are working themselves. Nearly half of working Medicaid enrollees are employed by small firms, and many work in industries with low employer-sponsored insurance offer rates."
Laurie,
Again ... You want to force citizens to pay the bills for other citizens...
You know some of I expect of them...
Should people on public assistance have more kids?
Or should they focus on caring for the 1+ they already have?
Jerry,
Your ideas on welfare reform are very lacking.
Just a dream in your head with no idea how it would work in reality.
Laurie,
Here is a golden oldie
"Vivian Thorp was a single mother of a 4-year-old daughter when she enrolled in California’s welfare-to-work program in 1999. Shortly after, Thorp met her fiance, who was also on public assistance. He struggled with mental illness. Sometimes they were homeless. Then Thorp got pregnant — and pregnant again.
Thorp was shocked to discover that she was not entitled to any more benefits for her two new daughters under California’s “maximum family grant rule,” which prevented women on welfare from receiving additional money if they had more children. Thorp found that her monthly welfare check of $520 wasn’t enough for three kids. Soon she was stealing food and diapers to get by."
Again why are rewarding irresponsible adults by not only allowing them to make more babies, but actually paying them for doing so...
And you wonder why these kids continue to fail generation after generation.
Again why are rewarding irresponsible adults by not only allowing them to make more babies, but actually paying them for doing so...
Because we like kids. I won't tell a woman whether or not to have a child, but I will the support her if she does have a child.
--Hiram
If you truly like kids... you may want to be more concerned with supporting them instead of her...
Please remember that I am fine with every mom having 1 child if they wish, and society helping to support her and the child.
But if she can not support having that 1 child, I don't think she has any business having 2, 3...
Here is an interesting piece that seems to confirm that low income women have more kids...
Now back to the topic of this post... Can you acknowledge that is likely bad for the kids and the USA? Or will you stick with your position?
"Your ideas on welfare reform are very lacking."-- John
And yet... and yet... it is working every day, for millions of people, through private charity. Just imagine the current welfare system with that same individualized, caring assistance, funded by the trillion dollars we currently throw into subsidizing irresponsible and unproductive behavior every year.
The government's "War on Poverty" is over, and Poverty won.
Can you acknowledge that is likely bad for the kids and the USA?
Kids are good for America. And while it's not my job to tell anyone to have them or not have them, I will certainly support the decision of those who do have them.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Charity works with those who are determined to change, grow and improve. Just as government welfare and training programs do. The challenge is what to do with the folks who are just fine living on hand outs and making big families they can not afford...
Hiram,
So are you saying that all kids are good for America? Even those we have to imprison and bury early?
So are you saying that all kids are good for America?
Yes.
Even those we have to imprison and bury early?
Maybe if we more aggressively supported children, we wouldn't have to imprison so many adults.
--Hiram
"Charity works with those who are determined to change, grow and improve." Charity works with anybody that wants help to improve their lot, which in my experience includes about 85% of them. Some, in addition to the 15% who have never known anything else, will need more help that they are NOT getting from government programs. And concentrating on "big families" sounds a lot like eugenics to me. Poor people have more kids because they don't have wealth. Get them into jobs with decent wages and family sizes go down.
Hiram,
Proposals?
Jerry,
"Poor people have more kids because they don't have wealth."
Rationale?
Ideally, people who couldn't afford to care for children would have no more than one. It is just not that upsetting to me when they do and I don't support your radical policy ideas. I am in favor of free contraceptives for women who are trying to be responsible,
Proposals?
Fully fund special education. Fully fund schools. Affordable health care.
I mean there is really no end of suggestions.
--Hiram
Laurie,
So it is okay in your view that irresponsible women continue to have and raise babies?
While you acknowledge that managing family size is a sign of a responsible woman?
Please explain where the needs of the children fit into your thoughts here?
Hiram,
How will any of that stop the kids from being maltreated, abused, etc?
You know... Those things that typically screw up young children?
I think kids need a home and food and healthcare and if that means helping a parent who has more children than they can afford so be it. I can't agree with your radical ideas about punishing irresponsible mothers. It is not upsetting to me if someone is irresponsible,
Which of the "How to Win" points below do you see as punishing the Mother?
And do you really think that giving an irresponsible Mother money in any way ensures the kids are raised well and safely?
As I asked originally, what do you expect from the recipient in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars per year that is being taken from families and children of other tax paying families?
They not in order of preference:
1.Weaken or eliminate the Public Employee Unions. Their primary purpose is to ensure the senior employees make the most money, receive the best positions and are secure in their employment. These goals are NOT aligned with cost effectively getting the most help to the people who need it. Pay for performance, not years and degrees.
2.Set hard knowledge attainment and/or poverty reduction targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit, and replace them if they don't. No more of these employment contracts where Superintendents get huge buy out clauses when they fail. Pay for performance, not degrees.
3.Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
5.The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
6.The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.
7.The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.
"It is not upsetting to me if someone is irresponsible."
That apathetic view annoys me greatly when it comes to the care of infants and toddlers..
What this means to me is that you are okay with placing kids in homes where NO Adoption agency would ever place them... And that is very sad for the kids.
"Jerry,
'Poor people have more kids because they don't have wealth.' Rationale? --John
Not rationale, observed fact.
Laurie, PMFBI, but
"Which of the "How to Win" points below do you see as punishing the Mother?" --John
This one:
"If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied."
Here is one more I believe topic for you:
Even though Trump is a corrupt, idiotic, narcissistic liar, I believe he is a better choice for president than a democrat .
Jerry,
How did you prove causation?
And does that mean we need to give irresponsible more women more money and they will stop getting pregnant?
Well here are some updates on Angel…
And apparently she had Number 18… I am sure she will be happy to know that you support her actions.
Laurie, Changing the topic does not change the fact that you are supporting kids going to questionable homes...
All for the freedom of the questionable adults... :-(
I will leave it to social services to determine when kids should be removed from their homes.
Now that is what I call low standards...
Once the child is neglected or abused enough so that it is noticed...
Something may be done...
John, so what you propose is that we not let children who will be "harmed" later in life not be born? Can we at least kill all the potential criminals at birth, first? Once again you are asking for laws to prevent crime, when all the law can do is to punish crime, or perhaps deter it among the generally law-abiding.
As for "causation" for more children, you are raising that global warming argument again. You want to argue that increasing CO2 causes warming, and expect me to argue that poverty causes more children. I prefer in both cases to look at the actual outcome, irrespective of any cause. CO2 goes up and temperatures do not. Wealth goes up and family size goes down. Just looking at the data, and not what you /think/ is cause and effect.
Perhaps the correct title here should be "I believe, don't confuse me with the facts."
Please remember that adoption is a choice...
4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
Given how incorrect you are on climate change, I would expect nothing else from you.:-)
We are not killing children or punishing Mothers. We are simply setting a requirement for receiving public assistance.
If you are currently on the dole, no more babies for you...
If you choose to have more babies, no more public assistance...
But if you are happy paying for Angels kids, I am sure she appreciates it.
Jerry,
The reason wealthy people have fewer babies is because they can afford birth control and are responsible enough to use it.
That is why I support comprehensive sex education and free birth control.
Whereas you prefer to keep them stupid and unprotected. :-(
3.Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
This seems related...
VOX Colorado offered free birth control — and teen abortions fell by 42 percent
Somehow you seem blind to the words "be forced to." Yet you accuse me of wanting to "cut off benefits" for the few proven freeloaders, where you want the same simply to force compliance with /your/ idea of how people should behave regarding children.
Of course I do...
There is no rationale reason why tax payers should pay for ever more children...
Though it is kind of you to be willing to support Angel and other women like her.
Well she is probably pretty unique...
Though even a single Mom with 4 kids seems irresponsible to me.
The good news though is that you are happy to support the raising of those kids.
Up until we help her find daycare and a job, and so long as the kids aren't physically abused or neglected more than naturally occurs as a result of a working single mom, yes. I would treat Angel as the unique person she is, just as any other welfare mom. I would think that with that many Baby Daddies around, she should be rolling in dough and my contribution wouldn't be necessary.
Do you think that woman can find a job that will pay for the daycare of 1 child?
And it seems that at least one of those baby daddies is in prison and another is on disability...
Please feel free to try and get money out of those folks. Maybe you can find some volunteer lawyers and judges to keep your collection costs down.
Again... If you support keeping girls stupid, charging them for birth control, having welfare Mom's continuing to get pregnant, you pretty much are agreeing to continue paying for the care of their child.
Well or you agreeing to make the child suffer the sins of the Mother.
You are so generous !!!
So long as you insist on the impossible, that a woman with no skills, no husband, no prospects find a way to live without subsidies and no other assistance from you or anybody else, you create tragedies like Angel. The time to have "fixed" that was years and years ago, and if she had been informed that one more kid would end the gravy train and she had to find a job-- which we would help her find-- there would not have been that many kids in the first place. You can join me in (reforming the system and) getting such women EFFECTIVE help at the first sign it is needed, or you can rail against me for the tragic and grossly ineffective system that you and I are both supporting.
It seems you are finally aligning with my #4
" if she had been informed that one more kid would end the gravy train "
4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
Again what is your plan for "ending the gravy train"? Let the newest arrival go hungry?
And if she gets pregnant again...
Then 2 kids go hungry?
What is your enforcement mechanism?
Same as yours, I expect. Cut off benefits, or don't raise them to cover the second child, or give her six months to find an added source of income (job, boyfriend, Mom, whatever).
Well it was refreshing hear you admitting that you believe in sticks...
Though the hungry babies are still a problem.
I believe in incentives top to bottom. First of all the positive incentives that could be had with a more direct and complete form of assistance and, at the far extreme, some negative incentives for the very few who refuse to help "us" help them.
I am willing to bet that, for those few who refuse help, they will either have their own way of getting by (probable) or will soon be found to be harming the kids and have them legally removed. I do NOT like making policy based on the 1%. Let's fix the 99% first.
Sounds a lot like today's system. :-)
Well except for the part where you starve the babies. :-(
By the way... Negative incentives = STICKS...
it is completely unlike today's system, except in the minds of the bureaucrats running it. You seem to be arguing that the purpose of today's welfare system is to help move people out of economic and cultural poverty, on an individual basis, as quickly as possible, and that it does it with Complete efficiency. Why do I not believe that? Again, we should be designing a welfare reform program for the 99% who would be helped, rather than the 1% who would refuse the help offered. and I am not the one starving those babies. The parents are responsible for that, and we already have laws to help the children when parents fail in that responsibility.
perhaps back on topic, I have to ask why you so stubbornly cling to the seemingly contrary ideas that the current welfare system is fine, but that we have to have Draconian new laws to prevent poor people from having babies.
Probably because you dislike and do not trust people who work for the government...
Because our current welfare system offers training and financials support to the 100%. And it works for the majority of them.
The ones it does not work for are those who do not want to learn, improve and grow. And most of them lose benefits in time.
The big exception is Mothers with children... Our society insists that we care for the children financially... (ie no starving babies) Therefore their is little disincentive regarding having another baby.
Not at all. I applaud our social workers for their efforts but I repeat: good people in a bad system produce bad results. And in this case, that applies on BOTH sides. I would need evidence that 100% are offered training or much of anything other than a check. That they are still on welfare argues against that assumption. And there is nothing in "the system" to my knowledge that presumes to make lives better, new job or not. That would require a "caring, personalized service" and that is not possible, because of workload and many rules, under the current system.
That sounds a LOT like you do not trust the government employees...
I trust them completely. They are real human beings doing the best they can within the constraints placed upon them by "the system." JUST like 99% of the welfare recipients are doing. Sounds to me like you don't trust welfare recipients.
Which constraints prevent the Social Workers from helping willing recipients to get training or job placement assistance?
What would incent them to not encourage these?
As for the welfare recipients, why would many of them be highly motivated to attend classes and get a job when they can stay home with their kids and collect checks?
Going to class, leaving kids, finding childcare, studying, etc all for a low paying job is hard for many people who simply do not have the internal drive to do so.
And just a reminder... Most of them are working...
The American low level jobs just don't pay enough to afford housing, childcare, healthcare, etc...
So now we are talking about single Mom's working and trying to go to school...
Please remember that the vast majority of welfare recipients would never run into my proposed policies. Only the really screwed up ones...
And we are back to the kids...
"
The vast majority of Americans receiving one of the six major forms of government assistance are children below the age of 18. Nearly half of all children in the U.S.—46.7 percent—received some form of government assistance at some point during 2012, while about two in five American children on average received assistance in a given month during the same year. Meanwhile, fewer than 17 percent of adults under the age of 64 received assistance on average during a given month in 2012, as did 12.6 percent of adults over the age of 65.
The 2015 report by the U.S. Census Bureau also shows that children participate for longer durations in these programs than adults. From 2009 to 2012, more than half of all children who received government assistance did so for somewhere between 37 and 48 months. Adults, whether they are over or under 65 years of age, are split between short- and long-term participation, with their rates of long-term participation far lower than those of children.
So when one imagines a welfare recipient, that person should not be an adult sitting on a couch before a television. That person should be a child in need."
It so happens I am well acquainted with welfare workers. They are overloaded and have a lot of paperwork. Home visits are practically nil, "outlawed" by LBJ, and the programs that do exist to help individuals are fragmented and not coordinated by individual. That is, a woman who needs child care, household budgeting and job training has to look three different places, IF a concerned social worker even recognizes her needs and refers her.
And haven't you proven my point, that we have too many people (mostly kids) on welfare, rather than working their way OFF with a lot of effective assistance?
And concern for "low paying jobs" is a Leftist trope and trap leading to $15/hour. What we should be encouraging is TWO parents working at $7.50/hour each. Or one parent making $14/hour and the other staying home with the kids.
It almost sounds like you think all children are the responsibility of the State. Don't.
Yes they are very busy given the low head count and large number of unhealthy family units.
Now are you saying kids should be working their way off welfare?
Unfortunately broken families seem to be norm in our country...
ProLife folks want authority over the Family choices. I guess they kind of should help the family..
And of course our society / government has taken responsibility for caring for the helpless among us... Be they young, disable or old.
Just think of all the laws and services both tribes support.
Reword, please. "And of course our government has taken responsibility for "caring for" the helpless among us."
Government programs don't care and cannot. They are a set of rules that take no account of individual need or circumstance. That is what I propose to change. Yes, "society" has changed and created more economically non-viable "family units." Senator Moynihan wrote a whole book on the subject in the 70s, and he was right. That change was exacerbated by the very government programs that were and are expected to help people. What a shame.
In a democracy the government and society are very blurred...
We the people vote for people who promise to protect and care for the helpless among us...
I mean even the GOP believes in this.
We also vote for politicians who promise to balance the budget. The question is how and how well government, as representative of "society," makes good on those promises. About the same, in my book, with the former working against the latter.
Perhaps back on topic, why do people believe these politicians when their track record, collectively, is so abysmal?
[Side note: we are a "representative republic" and not a democracy, but in the dilemma posited above, more democracy may be the answer. Suppose the IRS had you calculate your tax due, and then allowed you to designate, in percentages, how you wanted that spent. You could simply agree with the current budget percentages, or alter them. You could do it in broad categories or drill down to major programs, like SNAP or the F-35. The whole idea here would be to present "society" with a "price tag" for their desires and have the politicians see (and follow?) what people are actually willing to pay for government "services." For example, a recent poll asked people what they would pay to "prevent" global warming. I think the average answer was $50/year. MN's green energy mandates will cost over $1000. Hmmm...
Because the modern citizens are greedy and self centered...
They want lots of stuff from the government...
They want to pay very little for it...
The same reason you are reluctant to pay all the costs of the energy you use...
You want the energy, but not the exhaust consequence costs...
I'm perfectly happy to pay for coal minus the sulfur, etc that has been 99% removed already. As for the CO2, at the present rate of temperature rise, I much prefer the enhanced plant growth, a far greater economic benefit.
You raise an interesting quandary, though. How do you get people excited about the deficit enough that they demand it be curbed. We have a "don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut that guy behind the tree" mentality. I tried a while back with a poster of a cute 6-month old baby and the caption "She owes $462,000 to the government and can't find a job. Can you help?"
“How do you get people excited about the deficit enough that they demand it be curbed.”
First thing is that you teach them that Republicans don’t curb deficits. Democrats do. Vote Blue.
Moose
Moose,
Though it kills me to say it. You seem to be correct...
Or maybe I should say the best mix is a DEM President and a GOP House.
Well, the last time that happened the deficit tripled, so...
Jerry,
You keep forgetting that Bush etal started he disaster.
It was actually Obama and the DEMs and then Obama and GOP who got the GDP growing and spending under control.
Just in time for Trump and the GOP to screw things up.
Post a Comment