RE: When does helping, turn into enabling?

RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 3:56:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem is there is no incentive to crawl out of the hole. Every time someone proposes a Workfare type plan it is voted down. There is a social conspiracy to keep the poor and lower classes from actually achieving something better. When you consider that the lower classes are less likely to vote, there is no change in the power structure. Should Workfare every become the law of the land, and should the chances at higher education ever become equal, the social structure of this country would change dramatically. Workfare was tried.The rule was that if there was an able-bodied man living in a dwelling that wasn`t working,that household was cut off,essentially forcing or "incentivizing" fathers to leave the home.Otherwise his kids would go without. It was a disastrous rule. Question,if welfare is such a panacea,why aren`t folks running in droves to quite work,move the projects and collect all that mad cash and gubment cheese? I can understand that there are some "do-gooders" who would like to "help" folks break the cycle but usually it`s the innocent UMs who get hurt,get poorer and get sicker.

Owner59 -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 4:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron No one wants to talk about corporate welfare. Don't change the subject, LadyC. We are talking about social and psychological harm of welfare programs, not cost. Do feel free to start another thread and, outside of bringing up the strategic importance of a food reserve, I'll probably agree with you a lot. Look folks....the off topic police......[:D] The topic there professor, is enabling bad behavior...... Your failure to respond shows you really don`t have much to offer,intellectually.[:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 4:01:44 PM)
If there was a fairer distribution of the wealth available, less people would need help. The media make a big deal of how much the poor get from the rest of society, yet in the US 70% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people, most of it by the top 1%. Balance that against the fact that the lowest 50% own less than 1% of the wealth available. I doubt if the situation is different in the UK or most of the top industrialised countries.

LadyCimarron -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 4:07:02 PM)
But let's be honest, this is NOT 45 years ago. In that time span we have managed to create a society that is based upon greed, individualism and selfishness. Families are disconnected and so are neighborhoods and communities. Everyone is all for making adults work but no one wants to address what happens to the children because we all know that the answer would be inhumane. And there is never a cut off point when you dealing with hungry children. There just isn't. It easy to say its not the governments responsibility. I can just as well say it is not mine. Any family member that is not the parent of the children can just as easily say its not their responsibility either. That mentality still leaves us with starving children in a country that produces enough food to feed the entire world. The US throws away enough food to feed every hungry person in country. Even if they flat out refuse to work, it is immoral to let people starve when we throw away so much excess food.

LadyCimarron -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 4:10:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron No one wants to talk about corporate welfare. Don't change the subject, LadyC. We are talking about social and psychological harm of welfare programs, not cost. Do feel free to start another thread and, outside of bringing up the strategic importance of a food reserve, I'll probably agree with you a lot. I feel that corporate welfare and lack of govn't regulations have a major effect on welfare programs; but I will try not to explore that topic any further on this thread, unless it somehow overlaps. Just remember even before this economic downturn, corporate leaders like Ken Lay and Bernard Madoff put a lot of people on welfare.

Owner59 -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 4:31:26 PM)
I think for do-gooders of the conservative flavor ,they really aren`t concerned with the UMs,who bare the brunt of their do-gooderings. Their main focus,from what I`ve seen(show me if I`m wrong)is how much they pay in taxes,size of gov.,blah blah etc.....

dcnovice -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 4:36:44 PM)
quote: Once upon a time, we had this amazing thing called a "family" that would step up to the plate, wait for it now, WITHOUT some agency paying them to take care of a niece/nephew or grandchild. It was called a sense of personal responsibility. I am of the mind that 45 years of the US's poverty maintenance programs have helped tried very hard to kill that, and replace it with an entitlement mentality; a basic assumption that these are necessities the government is obligated to provide. When I lost my job last summer, I was blessed to have the aid of family and friends, which enabled me to cope without public assistance. (It helped that I found a new job relatively quickly.) So I definitely value families as key players in social welfare. I suspect most serious students of the issue do as well. But families historically haven't always been able to defeat poverty with their own resources. That's where public assistance came in. According to the one chart I could find quickly, the percentage of Americans living in poverty has dropped appreciably since 1959. I'm not sure that would have happened without social welfare programs. [image]http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/image006.gif[/image] Source: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ Yes, those programs come at a cost, both fiscal and social. Like Rich, I worry about the "entitlement mentality" and don't want it becoming hereditary. Unlike him, I see this mindset as an unfortunate effect of social welfare programs, not as their intention.

TheHeretic -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:03:32 PM)
DC, that's a little conspiracy theory I like to play with, in lighthearted moments. The answer Occam provides is that these were unintended consequences, but consequences just the same. The road to hell, yada yada.

TheHeretic -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:05:16 PM)
Speaking of people who need to assign me a position... You must not have read the whole post, Basiji, because I did preview the answer she would get outside of a deflecting hijack.

TheHeretic -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:07:54 PM)
Bernie Madoff was not a multi-national corporation, LadyC. Just a very clever crook who got caught. It seems like you are just throwing anything into the air to avoid the question about what happens when people are taught they don't need to work, and that it is better not to.

dcnovice -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:10:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic DC, that's a little conspiracy theory I like to play with, in lighthearted moments. The answer Occam provides is that these were unintended consequences, but consequences just the same. The road to hell, yada yada. Whew! You had me worried for a minute there. How to design programs so that you get the good (helping people escape poverty) without the bad (entitlement mentality) is a puzzle I've yet to solve.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:17:36 PM)
It is such a hard thing to figure out, because in most cases it is the children who suffer and they are the only ones who are helpless. That said, it does create an entitlement mentality that can follow them through life. I see parents who are really trying to get on their feet, and they use things like free lunch at school to help them make it through a rough patch. I also see parents who drive brand new SUV's and dress to the nines and have enough jewelry to feed a small nation for a week lying and getting free lunches for their kids. I wish we had the resources to check on each and every case to see if they are in fact in need, or if they are just milking the system, but then ya get into more dollars needed. One thing that contributes to it, IMHO, is the changes of values we have as a society. The more we become a "I will not be ashamed" society it seems, the more things people do with no shame, if that makes sense. 40 years ago, get pregnant out of wedlock and you would more than likely be sent to "visit family" in another state until the baby was born, then the baby would be put up for adoption and get a family who could and wanted to take care of them. Nowadays, ya go get Medicaid and WIC and Food Stamps and ya do not worry cause Uncle Sugah will take care of it, and the next one, and the next one, and on and on..... What was the question again? Now I need to go have a bit of herbal therapy cause I am all confused.

Politesub53 -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Bernie Madoff was not a multi-national corporation, LadyC. Just a very clever crook who got caught. It seems like you are just throwing anything into the air to avoid the question about what happens when people are taught they don't need to work, and that it is better not to. So what about AIG ? What about my post on wealth distribution ? What gets me is why so many republicans fall for the con that somehow they are getting a fair deal.

LadyCimarron -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Bernie Madoff was not a multi-national corporation, LadyC. Just a very clever crook who got caught. It seems like you are just throwing anything into the air to avoid the question about what happens when people are taught they don't need to work, and that it is better not to. I DID answer. We ALL answered that we should cut off adults, you still did not answer how to take care of the children. Instead you took a walk down memory lane of a time when families and neighbors all joined hands and sang kumbya. What do we do about hungry children when we cut off adults?

vincentML -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:31:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem is there is no incentive to crawl out of the hole. Every time someone proposes a Workfare type plan it is voted down. There is a social conspiracy to keep the poor and lower classes from actually achieving something better. When you consider that the lower classes are less likely to vote, there is no change in the power structure. Should Workfare every become the law of the land, and should the chances at higher education ever become equal, the social structure of this country would change dramatically. What about the Welfare Reform Act of 1996? I think it ended welfare as you think you know it, jlf. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, officially the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, fulfilled President William Jefferson Clinton's oftrepeated campaign promise "to end welfare as we know it." It replaced the federal program of Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), founded in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act, and later known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Owner59 -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Bernie Madoff was not a multi-national corporation, LadyC. Just a very clever crook who got caught. It seems like you are just throwing anything into the air to avoid the question about what happens when people are taught they don't need to work, and that it is better not to. So what about AIG ? What about my post on wealth distribution ? What gets me is why so many republicans fall for the con that somehow they are getting a fair deal. Giving billions of taxpayer dollars to corporations isn`t socialism.It`s predatory capitalism,which in neo-con translates to,..... "freedom"...... And boy those cons sure gave a major dose of "freedom"......hundred of billions worth. [:D] [X(]

TheHeretic -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:48:22 PM)
No, LadyC, I questioned your fundamental assumption that the children are automatically the obligation of the government to care for, and that we might as well just keep enabling welfare dependent families because it's cheaper that way. Some things cost more than just money. Just to save a bit of time, I've been dirt poor, and lived through some dirt poor times as a kid. Liberal guilt isn't going to work very well on me.

LadyCimarron -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:50:19 PM)
No one wants to talk about that either. Because a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC President was the only leader we have had with the gumption to actually do something about welfare reform. The Bushes preached about it but didn't touch it. Today people cannot live on welfare for life, there is a limit and during that time you either work or go to job training so you CAN work. That is how it works here and I am sure most other states.

LadyCimarron -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic No, LadyC, I questioned your fundamental assumption that the children are automatically the obligation of the government to care for, and that we might as well just keep enabling welfare dependent families because it's cheaper that way. Some things cost more than just money. Just to save a bit of time, I've been dirt poor, and lived through some dirt poor times as a kid. Liberal guilt isn't going to work very well on me. Sorry you were dirt poor. I was too. But you still have not answered the question: WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT HUNGRY CHILDREN AFTER WE CUT OFF THEIR PARENTS? Just answer that ONE question.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: When does helping, turn into enabling? (6/26/2010 5:58:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron No one wants to talk about that either. Because a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC President was the only leader we have had with the gumption to actually do something about welfare reform. The Bushes preached about it but didn't touch it. Today people cannot live on welfare for life, there is a limit and during that time you either work or go to job training so you CAN work. That is how it works here and I am sure most other states. They can if they work hard at beating the system. I know a few people who, if they put the effort into working that they put in to making trips to different places to get something from nothing, well, I bet they could rule the world. Hopefully, the commas in that long ass sentence made it understandable....

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875