Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Foxfyre]

If you get it, why isn't it taught in schools??????
Gov Schools teach sex ed, enough math to use food stamps and enough english to fill out government forms, pretty much in that order.
Why not teach "it"?

Oh they 'get it' but it doesn't fit the liberal mantra that millions of people are simply too stupid, or too ignorant, too incapable, too stressed, too disadvantaged to be expected to do much of anything for themselves and it is the mission of the liberal to rescue them, save them, provide justice in the form of all free things with no strings attached. All with YOUR money of course.

In fairness to the liberals, they don't think of it in the same terms I just described it. They generally describe it in much more noble and politically correct terms, but in effect, what I said is what is happening.

MaggieMae, for instance defends her lack of personal responsibiity to help the poor because she has a job that consumes 40 to 50 hours of her day. Well shoot, that leave 40 to 50 hours of awake time that could be devoted to working with the poor during the week and also another 30 or so hours on the weekends. But that would be unreasonable, yes? She is entitled to have a life. Therefore it is up to you to give up your hard earned money to help the poor so that she can have a life.

(I'm just picking on Maggie because she has been involved in the discussion. You can use just about any name or face on the left as an illustration.)

But in their arguments they will invariably point back at the conservative point of view as hard hearted, unreasonable, uncaring, greedy, selfish, etc. etc. etc. They will raise up any number of anecdotal examples to make their case. They don't allow us to use anecdotal examples however and blow those off as irrelevent.

And they also blow off the arguments re making people comfortable in poverty and the legacy that has wrought. You notice that not one person on the left has had the integrity to address that?

As the writer of the Waco letter to the editor put it: participation in poverty programs is purely voluntary. Nobody is required to participate, but those who do should be willing to follow our rules. If you want to reproduce, get a job. But if you want us to support you, you will agree to temporary or permanent sterilization so that we do not have do deal with more generations of children born into poverty extending into an endless future.

And preventing more children from being born into poverty sounds more compassionate to me than does rewarding folks with more government assistance when they bring more more kids into poverty.

 

[logical4u]

If you get it, why isn't it taught in schools??????
Gov Schools teach sex ed, enough math to use food stamps and enough english to fill out government forms, pretty much in that order.
Why not teach "it"?

Oh they 'get it' but it doesn't fit the liberal mantra that millions of people are simply too stupid, or too ignorant, too incapable, too stressed, too disadvantaged to be expected to do much of anything for themselves and it is the mission of the liberal to rescue them, save them, provide justice in the form of all free things with no strings attached. All with YOUR money of course.

In fairness to the liberals, they don't think of it in the same terms I just described it. They generally describe it in much more noble and politically correct terms, but in effect, what I said is what is happening.

MaggieMae, for instance defends her lack of personal responsibiity to help the poor because she has a job that consumes 40 to 50 hours of her day. Well shoot, that leave 40 to 50 hours of awake time that could be devoted to working with the poor during the week and also another 30 or so hours on the weekends. But that would be unreasonable, yes? She is entitled to have a life. Therefore it is up to you to give up your hard earned money to help the poor so that she can have a life.

(I'm just picking on Maggie because she has been involved in the discussion. You can use just about any name or face on the left as an illustration.)

But in their arguments they will invariably point back at the conservative point of view as hard hearted, unreasonable, uncaring, greedy, selfish, etc. etc. etc. They will raise up any number of anecdotal examples to make their case. They don't allow us to use anecdotal examples however and blow those off as irrelevent.

And they also blow off the arguments re making people comfortable in poverty and the legacy that has wrought. You notice that not one person on the left has had the integrity to address that?

As the writer of the Waco letter to the editor put it: participation in poverty programs is purely voluntary. Nobody is required to participate, but those who do should be willing to follow our rules. If you want to reproduce, get a job. But if you want us to support you, you will agree to temporary or permanent sterilization so that we do not have do deal with more generations of children born into poverty extending into an endless future.

And preventing more children from being born into poverty sounds more compassionate to me than does rewarding folks with more government assistance when they bring more more kids into poverty.

If you in the sterilization mode, go ahead and sterilize anyone that was convicted of drug use. If they quit they can earn the money to reverse the proceedure.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would say that a person would have to be drug free in order to get a welfare check. If they test positive they would be required to enter an austere and very unpleasant drug rehab program with no perks of any kind in order to continue to receive any government benefits. Otherwise they better get a job if they want to do drugs and still have a roof over their heads and eat.

But I am not for what MaggieMae would call 'Hitleresque' means to enforce morality. I am very much in favor of taking kids from parents who cannot or will not provide them with minimal basic necessities.

 

[MaggieMae]

I often overestimate your ability to mentally process any issue more complex than quoting W.C. Fields, and even that you fuck-up.


Um....I never said anything about Repubs or Dems.....but its interesting that you would like to make this some sort of partisan issue after claiming that the problem is empty rhetoric.
Your reputation precedes you. OF COURSE you wish to blame it all on liberals. Nice spin.

Let me slow down for you to catch up.
If you feel smug attempting to seem more intelligent, then knock yourself out. Past experience with you says otherwise.

Poverty is the problem poorly coordinated fragmented government bureaucracy.

If indeed we had a "War on Poverty," it is no surprise that we would lose it. Frankly, based on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants entering the USA to escape poverty, the necessity for a " US War on Poverty" seems to be questionable.

However, the fact is that the USA was never, and has never been, and never will be, designed to have a strong central government.

The Constitution clearly was designed to have a strong central government, decentralized only by the rights of states. But federal law always has, and will continue to trump state law where conflicts arise.

Poor confused Maggie.

Federal Law doesn't prevent poverty.

What a complete moron you are.

I wasn't confused. Which part confused you? Where was "poverty" mentioned at all in that exchange?

 

[MaggieMae]

MaggieMae, for instance defends her lack of personal responsibiity to help the poor because she has a job that consumes 40 to 50 hours of her day. Well shoot, that leave 40 to 50 hours of awake time that could be devoted to working with the poor during the week and also another 30 or so hours on the weekends. But that would be unreasonable, yes? She is entitled to have a life. Therefore it is up to you to give up your hard earned money to help the poor so that she can have a life.

(I'm just picking on Maggie because she has been involved in the discussion. You can use just about any name or face on the left as an illustration.)

I really thought you were a little smarter than the "Samsons" who post on this board. Come to find out, you're just as insulting as he is--only more coy about it. You obviously didn't *get* a word I said. And surprise surprise, it had zero to do with wealth redistribution, which you intimate above.

Your lack of comprehension and tunnel vision are not attributes to be proud of.

 

[MaggieMae]

She isn't alone. You run across committed leftists everywhere. They are in a fairly small minority, but they all seem to be very vocal, opinionated, judgmental, and are convinced they speak with much authority. And they are convinced that those of us who lean toward conservative values and see those as the best answer to address many if not most (even all) social problems in America--they see us as selfish, hateful, uncaring, uncharitable, and intent on punishing the pitiful poor.

The liberal feels righteous when they dictate 'conscience' to somebody else and most especially if they can forcibly confiscate another's property to give to somebody else. It is really easy to be generous with other people's money. As Maggie Thatcher once said though, sooner or later you run out of other people's money and usually find that nothing much has changed except many more people are poorer.

The conservative feels good when s/he rolls up the sleeves, wades in, and gets it done and ends up the day dirty, maybe even a bit bloodied, and bone tired but knows s/he left a situation better than it was. Charity to a conservative means voluntary giving of your own energy, gifts, and resources.

A fundamental principle of economics has never been effectively challenged by anybody. If you want something to decrease, tax, punish or penalize it.
If you want something to increase, subsidize it.

That principles also applies to much involving the 'poor'.

This is the point where you give conservatives so much praise I feel like gagging, because from my perch, I see the "conservative" view as being that of Oddball, Samson and Zander--ridiculously immature, completely void of any common sense rationality, with you attempting to play the mediator but having strict conservative "values" that get in the way of seeing the whole picture.

No, dear, we simply agree that something needs to be done about the cycle of poverty other than just throwing money at it, but disagree that YOUR methods of "compassionate conservatism" would actually put food on the table and roofs over the heads of those who really do need it. It's morans like Oddball and Samson that don't even allow someone like me to give my opinions without lacing theirs with insults. How is that helpful? Who is more part of the problem rather than the solution? Me? I don't think so...

Where are your suggestions on how to make it better, other than "throw more money at it"?????
If you had taken the time to actually READ what I said, you would know that I emphasized education of the ignorant and illiterate more than once, and specifically how that could happen. In fact, I'm very much against just throwing more money unaccounted for at the problem, which I also said a few times.

You have received suggestions the actually work. You don't like them because you consider them painful. Newsflash: growing is painful. You don't like them because they are conservative (actually proven to work).
Like what? To be more conscious of moral values and that will magically reform the illiterate and ignorant and propel them into productive members of society? Sure it will. As I ALSO said, introduction to values wouldn't be necessary if more people had the opportunity to pull themselves out of the gutter. "Values" would naturally follow anyway. Ironically, Foxfyre nor anyone else cared to respond to any of my specific points.

Understand most of the people on this site have been below the poverty level at some point in their life.
What? First off, you have no way of knowing that, and second I'm guessing it isn't true.
Most, if not all, have chosen, not to stay there. Poverty in this country can be temporary. If you graduate high school and still live at home, you can be considered below the poverty line. If you get an entry job and apply yourself to become more valuable to employers, you step above the poverty line. If you continue to work to become more valuable, your pay increases. If you don't try to become better, the gov will force your employer to pay you more with increases in minimum wage, making the people's pay worth less that have been promoted (it widens the income gap between the very rich and the "middle class").
In 2006, the median income had risen by only 4.6% but the wealthy had seen theirs rise by double digits. The recent minimum wage increase hardly made a difference in closing that gap. In fact, 2009 saw an increase of 16% from 2008 in households worth $1 million or more, at the same time massive layoffs were occurring among the middle- and lower-classes.

Your (the liberal/communist/socialist suggestions have hurt the middle class and increased the amount of people living below the poverty level. By taking more from the middle class (the other taxpayers), you force those people closer to the poverty line.
The system you support has no middle class; it has the masses that live in despair and the elite that control them. The "servants" of the elite live slightly better than the masses, but not much.

IMHO, the people that support this system live to see people "brought down", and care nothing about improving society as a whole. They are just "small" people that think smaller.

I'm hoping by your last two comments that you include corporate welfare in your analysis, which drains "this system" as much as people welfare.

 

[Foxfyre]

MaggieMae, for instance defends her lack of personal responsibiity to help the poor because she has a job that consumes 40 to 50 hours of her day. Well shoot, that leave 40 to 50 hours of awake time that could be devoted to working with the poor during the week and also another 30 or so hours on the weekends. But that would be unreasonable, yes? She is entitled to have a life. Therefore it is up to you to give up your hard earned money to help the poor so that she can have a life.

(I'm just picking on Maggie because she has been involved in the discussion. You can use just about any name or face on the left as an illustration.)

I really thought you were a little smarter than the "Samsons" who post on this board. Come to find out, you're just as insulting as he is--only more coy about it. You obviously didn't *get* a word I said. And surprise surprise, it had zero to do with wealth redistribution, which you intimate above.

Your lack of comprehension and tunnel vision are not attributes to be proud of.

And if you think my post was about wealth redistribution, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one with lack of comprehension or tunnel vision.

 

[MaggieMae]

MaggieMae, for instance defends her lack of personal responsibiity to help the poor because she has a job that consumes 40 to 50 hours of her day. Well shoot, that leave 40 to 50 hours of awake time that could be devoted to working with the poor during the week and also another 30 or so hours on the weekends. But that would be unreasonable, yes? She is entitled to have a life. Therefore it is up to you to give up your hard earned money to help the poor so that she can have a life.

(I'm just picking on Maggie because she has been involved in the discussion. You can use just about any name or face on the left as an illustration.)

I really thought you were a little smarter than the "Samsons" who post on this board. Come to find out, you're just as insulting as he is--only more coy about it. You obviously didn't *get* a word I said. And surprise surprise, it had zero to do with wealth redistribution, which you intimate above.

Your lack of comprehension and tunnel vision are not attributes to be proud of.

And if you think my post was about wealth redistribution, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one with lack of comprehension or tunnel vision.

What's that, then?

 

[logical4u]

This is the point where you give conservatives so much praise I feel like gagging, because from my perch, I see the "conservative" view as being that of Oddball, Samson and Zander--ridiculously immature, completely void of any common sense rationality, with you attempting to play the mediator but having strict conservative "values" that get in the way of seeing the whole picture.

No, dear, we simply agree that something needs to be done about the cycle of poverty other than just throwing money at it, but disagree that YOUR methods of "compassionate conservatism" would actually put food on the table and roofs over the heads of those who really do need it. It's morans like Oddball and Samson that don't even allow someone like me to give my opinions without lacing theirs with insults. How is that helpful? Who is more part of the problem rather than the solution? Me? I don't think so...

Where are your suggestions on how to make it better, other than "throw more money at it"?????
If you had taken the time to actually READ what I said, you would know that I emphasized education of the ignorant and illiterate more than once, and specifically how that could happen. In fact, I'm very much against just throwing more money unaccounted for at the problem, which I also said a few times.

You have received suggestions the actually work. You don't like them because you consider them painful. Newsflash: growing is painful. You don't like them because they are conservative (actually proven to work).
Like what? To be more conscious of moral values and that will magically reform the illiterate and ignorant and propel them into productive members of society? Sure it will. As I ALSO said, introduction to values wouldn't be necessary if more people had the opportunity to pull themselves out of the gutter. "Values" would naturally follow anyway. Ironically, Foxfyre nor anyone else cared to respond to any of my specific points.

Understand most of the people on this site have been below the poverty level at some point in their life.
What? First off, you have no way of knowing that, and second I'm guessing it isn't true.
Most, if not all, have chosen, not to stay there. Poverty in this country can be temporary. If you graduate high school and still live at home, you can be considered below the poverty line. If you get an entry job and apply yourself to become more valuable to employers, you step above the poverty line. If you continue to work to become more valuable, your pay increases. If you don't try to become better, the gov will force your employer to pay you more with increases in minimum wage, making the people's pay worth less that have been promoted (it widens the income gap between the very rich and the "middle class").
In 2006, the median income had risen by only 4.6% but the wealthy had seen theirs rise by double digits. The recent minimum wage increase hardly made a difference in closing that gap. In fact, 2009 saw an increase of 16% from 2008 in households worth $1 million or more, at the same time massive layoffs were occurring among the middle- and lower-classes.

Your (the liberal/communist/socialist suggestions have hurt the middle class and increased the amount of people living below the poverty level. By taking more from the middle class (the other taxpayers), you force those people closer to the poverty line.
The system you support has no middle class; it has the masses that live in despair and the elite that control them. The "servants" of the elite live slightly better than the masses, but not much.

IMHO, the people that support this system live to see people "brought down", and care nothing about improving society as a whole. They are just "small" people that think smaller.

I'm hoping by your last two comments that you include corporate welfare in your analysis, which drains "this system" as much as people welfare.

"you would know that I emphasized education of the ignorant and illiterate more than once, and specifically how that could happen. In fact, I'm very much against just throwing more money unaccounted for at the problem".... this IS "throwing money". How would you specifically improve education? I gave a list that could be taught in school that would direct children toward more moral, more educated lives. Your response: whiney excuses.
If you are growing
Education
Job
1 dream
your own place
romance
in that order.
You are spouting the same stuff that started in the late fifties and has been failing children that needed to grow, ever since. It does not work. Time to change back to the proven methods.

Values do not "naturally" happen. They must be taught. If you look at "really" wealthy people they are either very moral or very immoral. There are very few that are somewhere in between. If morals (values) are not taught and encouraged, the person will grow away from morals.

Why don't you try asking the people on the site if they have ever lived below the poverty level? I know I have. I have read where others have had hard struggles before their lives smoothed out to a form of contentment. IMHO, that is one of the problems with lefties/socialists/communists/homosexual activists/muslim extremists, they tend to make a broad, judgemental statement and never consider that a person could be in that spot for a relatively short period of time. It does not mean they will always be in that same spot.

It was a nice dodge about corporate welfare, you ignored the problems caused by social welfare by changing the subject. For the record: I think that corporations should not be taxed (the cost is passed to the consumer). I do believe they should maintain a form of insurance to protect the land and the employees (just in case of serious environmental damage). I do not believe that corporations should get "welfare" any more than people should. I believe that local charities can be much more effective and efficient than a distant controller.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Andrew Klavan with a few words on good intentions.

PJTV - The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition - Andrew Klavan

But wait! Just who was that taxi driver shepparding Andrew back from the gates of Hell?


JM

 

[jeffrockit]

OK...

Let's end Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, subsidized housing, earned income credit, progressive income taxation, heat/energy assistance programs, public school, the minimum wage, every needs based program funded by government, and whatever else I'm leaving out.

There, now they're all gone.

Tell us, how long before we then see a substantial reduction in the amount of poverty in this country?

Don't laugh, this is what conservatives are claiming.

Cause cradle to grave govt services show a real substantial reduction in the amount of poverty. If you continue to reward people, they will remain in the same position they are currently in. The facts can't be changed that what the govt is currently doing is not reducing the poverty numbers.

 

[MaggieMae]

I would say that a person would have to be drug free in order to get a welfare check. If they test positive they would be required to enter an austere and very unpleasant drug rehab program with no perks of any kind in order to continue to receive any government benefits. Otherwise they better get a job if they want to do drugs and still have a roof over their heads and eat.

But I am not for what MaggieMae would call 'Hitleresque' means to enforce morality. I am very much in favor of taking kids from parents who cannot or will not provide them with minimal basic necessities.

I think that happens anyway, when the authorities are made aware of such situations. But to the drug testing, there aren't enough rehabs in the country to accommodate everyone who wants to go even now, let alone if "welfare" people taking drugs are forced to go, although I do agree that drug testing should be mandatory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would say that a person would have to be drug free in order to get a welfare check. If they test positive they would be required to enter an austere and very unpleasant drug rehab program with no perks of any kind in order to continue to receive any government benefits. Otherwise they better get a job if they want to do drugs and still have a roof over their heads and eat.

But I am not for what MaggieMae would call 'Hitleresque' means to enforce morality. I am very much in favor of taking kids from parents who cannot or will not provide them with minimal basic necessities.

One of the great lies of those who claimed to follow, and did not, Ronald Reagan, was the shuttering of orphanages and outsourcing to fosterage. Costs did not go down, and now our most vulnerable of our littlest citizens are at the mercies of those who make money off them.

I am with Foxfyre. Take kids from parents who can, or won't, care for them, and from parents who will not get off drugs and or alcohol. A community based child home (hospital school district charity business support) to raise these kids will be less than foster care, court cases, and destroyed lives in the long run.

Folks, we are going to pay for this: on the front end or the back end. Let's pay for it in a way that betters society. No parent has a right to raise a child when s/he can't even take care of her/himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Andrew Klavan with a few words on good intentions.

PJTV - The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition - Andrew Klavan

But wait! Just who was that taxi driver shepparding Andrew back from the gates of Hell?


JM

Couldn't access it without joining PJTV James. Anyway you can find it on youtube or on a more user accessible site?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know any Foster parents who are actually 'making money' taking in foster kids. And there are some bad ones but most are providing an excellent service. Most foster children are mentally, emotionally, and sometimes physically damaged having been abused or neglected or uinloved/unwanted for prolonged periods before the state intervenes. But a loving foster home can do wonders. And a good orphanage also provides the love, attention, and feeling of belonging someplace that is essential for the well being of children. I suppose the state could run such, but I've never seen a good state run orphanage. All the good ones I've seen are run by private organizations and charities. In my opinion a good orphanage is even superior to a good foster home because the kids feel they belong more--they're all inthe same boat--and it is usually more permanent.

Helping foster parents and privately run orphanages with overhead and expenses up through say graduation from highschool or 18, whichever comes first, IS a government program I wouldn't crab about as it will save the taxpayer a lot of money by making these kids less likely to be running the streets, joining gangs, and becoming sociopathic misfits.

And the more we do not allow abusive, neglectful, drugged out/dangerous parents to keep their kids, I am confident that within a relatively short time, there will be far fewer such children brougth into the world. If there are no government benefits and they won't be allowed to keep the baby, and they have to pay for their own abortion, most will work a lot harder to not get pregnant in the first place as it once was.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Andrew Klavan with a few words on good intentions.

PJTV - The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition - Andrew Klavan

But wait! Just who was that taxi driver shepparding Andrew back from the gates of Hell?


JM

Couldn't access it without joining PJTV James. Anyway you can find it on youtube or on a more user accessible site?

Try this:


I know some people don't like to join every damn website but I joined PJTV and took the free option.

JM

 

[Foxfyre]

Andrew Klavan with a few words on good intentions.

PJTV - The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition - Andrew Klavan

But wait! Just who was that taxi driver shepparding Andrew back from the gates of Hell?


JM

Couldn't access it without joining PJTV James. Anyway you can find it on youtube or on a more user accessible site?

Try this:


I know some people don't like to join every damn website but I joined PJTV and took the free option.

JM

Yep, he pretty well hit on most of the big issues, and nailed the theme:

It doesn't matter if the road we are on leads straight to hell as long as we can feel righteous while we are traveling there.

Until people really stop and take a good hard look at the truth of that, I doubt we'll ever start winning most of the battles in the War on Poverty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know any Foster parents who are actually 'making money' taking in foster kids. And there are some bad ones but most are providing an excellent service. Most foster children are mentally, emotionally, and sometimes physically damaged having been abused or neglected or uinloved/unwanted for prolonged periods before the state intervenes. But a loving foster home can do wonders. And a good orphanage also provides the love, attention, and feeling of belonging someplace that is essential for the well being of children. I suppose the state could run such, but I've never seen a good state run orphanage. All the good ones I've seen are run by private organizations and charities. In my opinion a good orphanage is even superior to a good foster home because the kids feel they belong more--they're all inthe same boat--and it is usually more permanent.

Helping foster parents and privately run orphanages with overhead and expenses up through say graduation from highschool or 18, whichever comes first, IS a government program I wouldn't crab about as it will save the taxpayer a lot of money by making these kids less likely to be running the streets, joining gangs, and becoming sociopathic misfits.

And the more we do not allow abusive, neglectful, drugged out/dangerous parents to keep their kids, I am confident that within a relatively short time, there will be far fewer such children brougth into the world. If there are no government benefits and they won't be allowed to keep the baby, and they have to pay for their own abortion, most will work a lot harder to not get pregnant in the first place as it once was.

(1) We all know, I suspect, folks who take in kids for the money; we certainly have that type here.

(2) I doubt you can provide stats that show foster parents in the majority are great parents. I have known some but not many, and those folks are saints.

(3) I am more than willing to support your idea of private orphanages using government monies with government oversight and inspections along with the auditors of the orphanage.

(4) Remove children from abusive parents is the first step.

(5) The way to get around your concerns about a government orphanage is to base it on the immediate community with all the community assets invested in its success.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lets just keep the federal government out of the foster care programs AND the orphanage business and put these at the local level. That will prevent a multitude of sins and promote the most efficient and effective environment for the children.

Any foster parent who is making much if any money taking in the kids, is likely not providing what those kids need. And yes, the authorities who place those kids do have a responsibility to ensure that they are being taken care of. I know a LOT of foster parents and they ALL are expending their own money in addition to the modest stipends they receive in order to properly take care of their young charges.

 

[Samson]

Lets just keep the federal government out of the foster care programs AND the orphanage business and put these at the local level. That will prevent a multitude of sins and promote the most efficient and effective environment for the children.

Any foster parent who is making much if any money taking in the kids, is likely not providing what those kids need. And yes, the authorities who place those kids do have a responsibility to ensure that they are being taken care of. I know a LOT of foster parents and they ALL are expending their own money in addition to the modest stipends they receive in order to properly take care of their young charges.

Is there any evidence the feds want to get into the foster care business?