Gold Member
Sorry, but it's over. The vast majority of us don't live in farms or villages anymore, or in homogeneous populations, and we move around a lot. Looser social ties are just how things work in a modern urbanized society, and government is the way in which communities (or the wider national community) takes care of itself. You're simply wrong about the division of "self-reliant" and "non-self-reliant" people and their political persuasions, but even more, "self-reliance" tends to be used as a social/political fantasy, depending on what it is the speaker means.Originally Posted by tvranesic
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
KnifeMaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
yes, unless they are participating in the pension fund of a major company like GM. Then we will "bail out" the company and the government will own part and give the rest to the union that helped destroy it.. The workers own the means of procution,, man!!!
Joe Mandt
St Petersburg, FL
ABS Apprentice Smith and Honorary Eurotrash
www.JMForge.com
Blade Show Table 22R
Gold Member
Much of which can be either directly or indirectly attributed to this government program or that government policy. A strong community doesn't necessarily have to mean a bunch of folks who live really close to one another. In fact, in my mind geographical proximity is probably the least important attribute of a strong community.
A "national community" taking care of itself has been done too...how'd that work out?
Are you saying those most dependent on the government do not vote largely democrat? And you're of the notion that self-reliance isn't possible? I would agree depending on the level of self-reliance. Can most folks build roads, generate nuclear power, or dole out justice if they put forth enough effort? No. However, most folks can earn a living, feed their families, and provide for their basic needs. It's only when the meaning of "general welfare" is grossly distored that folks are incapable of taking care of themselves.
" if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own' "Barack Obama 10/25/11
Platinum Member
As with many terms, I guess "strong community" has different meaning for different people. I remember multi-generational homes. Grandma and grandpa lived with their children and grandchildren, if not in the same house, then next door. Often extended family was near too. And those that weren't always made it a point to attend family gatherings several times a year, no matter where they had moved to. "Strong community" extended outside the family too. Everyone for miles around knew everyone else. Most businessmen knew everyone too. I could go into any store and get what I wanted by signing a ticket. Or using a counter check. Yep, stores and banks kept pads of blank checks on the counter and you just filled one out to pay for your purchase, or to get cash. Never needed an I.D. When people ran on hard times, people of the community pitched in to help. Homes and barns that were burned or torn up by a storm were rebuilt by people of the community. Religious ties were an important part of the community too. Churches didn't "compete", but cooperated. We had joint services sometimes. My daughter jokes that she grew up as a presby-bapti-methodist. We had shared phone lines too. There were five local families on our line. We had to take turns using it. Most of the men were involved in policing the community too. Many of the men were deputy sheriffs, including my dad and myself. I also took my turns as a storm watcher and volunteer fireman. Well, that is what I remember as a "strong community".
"The test of an adventure is that when you're in the middle of it, you say to yourself, 'Oh, now I've got myself into an awful mess; I wish I were sitting quietly at home." - Thornton Wilder
Gold Member
You just described my life and the place I live (except for the phone party-lines). My mother in law lives in the apartment in my house, my son is back home with us while looking for work, my parents live next door, my two sisters live 10 mins. away and my brother is up from VA. for a couple weeks visit. Additionally, you can't swing a dead cat up here without hitting a couple of my 172 cousins and various Aunts and Uncles.
Platinum Member
Yes, but such multi-generational arrangements seem to be few and far between these days. Education, work opportunities and other interests, not to mention divorce, spread families all over the map. Close-knit communities outside the family likewise are more uncommon. Not many people can say that they know every person who lives within one mile of them, or even on the same block. "Every man for himself" is a more common attitude as we see people constantly calling for the end to public assistance for people in need because it is outside their personal experience to ever need it and they live with the belief, right or wrong, that neither they nor their family ever will.
"The test of an adventure is that when you're in the middle of it, you say to yourself, 'Oh, now I've got myself into an awful mess; I wish I were sitting quietly at home." - Thornton Wilder
Gold Member
Re: unemployment rate, it was about 0.5% here in the 60's and I remember when it went up to about 3% we thought it was the end of the world - but that was pre-Thatcher!
Re: The current government's austerity policy, which includes drastic defence and police cuts amongs other things, there is no sign yet of it working. The prescription seems to be more of the same. Over the Atlantic however, unemployment seems to have started falling.
Gold Member
Not really. I think you're mostly mixing cause and effect. Government responds to perceived needs. The social changes you so deplore are largely natural outcomes and effects of the related factors of capitalism and advancing technology, which have brought us many good things, but whose effects are not uniformly benign. The idea that somehow poor and unemployed people would all go out and get jobs if the government cut off the safety net seems pretty improbable. The likelier outcome is that poverty and crime would get much worse. Such proposals seem more about expressing outrage and trying to enforce a moral code than actually solving any problems. (E.g., let's institute mandatory drug testing for all recipients of government benefits and cut off anybody who can't pass. Sure, that will make everything all better.) I think there are certainly more intelligent and more effective ways to lift people out of poverty than what we currently do, but frankly, those would cost more than what we spend now, not less.
Well, if it has nothing to do with geography, and you don't like the idea of a political/social "national community," then maybe you could define exactly what it is you mean and give examples where in a modern society the "community" has managed to look after itself through informal and/or non-governmental methods. About the only conceivable example--and then only a partial one--might be the very special and peculiar case of Japan, where most of us--the more libertarian among us, especially--would really not be very happy, where the phenomenon is disappearing as modern social organization continues to replace traditional social organization, and where a lot of the problems they face are due to the fact that they have not made just such a transition.
Compared to what? Again, it could certainly work better, but there is no reason to believe that de-governmentalizing the social safety net would be anything close to effective, and I don't think you can point to a comparable society where this works. Also, let's note that most of the social safety-net policies that conservatives deplore have been demonstrated to work pretty well in many countries that are quite comparable to the US.
It depends on who you're talking about. Presumably your target is poor people who get food stamps, welfare, etc. Well, maybe the vote mostly Democratic, but other particular interest groups (e.g., oil companies) largely support Republicans. (On the other hand, these particular groups vote at appallingly low rates and can't monetarily support political candidates or parties, so the Democrats would really benefit much more from pandering to rich constituencies, as the Republicans do.) But so what? All political parties have constituencies, and many of those constituencies expect their parties to arrange and implement policies that work to their benefit--oil companies, agribusiness, and people who make most of their income from capital gains, for instance. But I would say that a lot of people vote Democrat who aren't all that dependent on government. I'm also saying that a lot of people who are very dependent on the government don't vote Democratic--military retirees and those who work in the defense industry, old people on Social Security and Medicare, farmers, rural communities, etc.
I wouldn't disagree with you up to the last sentence, the meaning of which I don't quite get. Most people can and do earn a living and feed their families, and most prefer to do so. The issue is whether the great majority of people who aren't doing are in that position because of spite or laziness, and whether they would be able to do so if somehow government benefits to the poor were taken away. Again, this seems pretty unlikely, and it seems like wishful thinking to postulate that it's true.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
There is little doubt that the overwhelming majority are poor because of laziness or poor decisions, census bureau stats back this up.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-americas-poorA major element in the declining capacity for self-support is the collapse of marriage in low-income communities. As the War on Poverty expanded benefits, welfare began to serve as a substitute for a husband in the home, and low-income marriage began to disappear. When Johnson launched the War on Poverty, 7 percent of American children were born out of wedlock. Today, the number is over 40 percent. As married fathers disappeared from the home, the need for more welfare to support single mothers increased. The War on Poverty created a destructive feedback loop: Welfare undermined marriage, and this generated a need for more welfare.
Today, out-of-wedlock childbearing—with the resulting growth of single-parent homes—is the most important cause of child poverty. (Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the same thing as teen pregnancy; the overwhelming majority of non-marital births occur to young adult women in their early twenties, not to teenagers in high school.) If poor women who give birth outside of marriage were married to the fathers of their children, two-thirds would immediately be lifted out of poverty.[52] Roughly 80 percent of all long-term poverty occurs in single-parent homes.
Despite the dominant role of the decline of marriage in child poverty, this issue is taboo in most anti-poverty discussions. The press rarely mentions out-of-wedlock childbearing. Far from reducing the main cause of child poverty, the welfare state cannot even acknowledge its existence.
The second major cause of child poverty is lack of parental work. Even in good economic times, the average poor family with children has only 800 hours of total parental work per year—the equivalent of one adult working 16 hours per week. The math is fairly simple: Little work equals little income, which equals poverty. If the amount of work performed by poor families with children was increased to the equivalent of one adult working full time throughout the year, the poverty rate among these families would drop by two-thirds.[53]
The welfare system needs to be transformed to further reduce child poverty and to promote prosperous self-sufficiency. When the current recession ends, able-bodied parents should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. In addition, the welfare system should support and encourage, rather than penalize, marriage.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Gold Member
Census stats (or at least the article you quote) may back up that poverty could be reduced if people had jobs (duh!) but to conclude that this is all laziness does not follow, and is IMO an expression of class hostility toward the poor, which you have often exhibited before.
The most important choice that people make in terms of their future is their choice of parents. Census and other stats back this up pretty emphatically.
In any case, you don't seem either to be proposing a solution or practical alternative program, nor do you seem to have much interest in one. Rather, it's a matter of trying to assign blame and make sure that the poor are properly punished for their bad choices--including of course poor children who rather foolishly chose the wrong parents.
Last edited by OliverH; 02-03-2012 at 03:46 PM.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
If you read the article you would see the "poor" work an average of 18hrs/week, so they already have jobs. They just need to work more.
So did Oprah choose wisely by picking a father who raped her? It didn't stop her from becoming the richest woman in the country. As I have repeatedly said, it is much easier to make excuses for you failures than to make opportunities for your success.The most important choice that people make in terms of their future is their choice of parents. Census and other stats back this up pretty emphatically.
Natural selection created a solution eons ago, why should I be tasked with reinventing the wheel? Hunger is a great motivator. It led 20 million illegals to risk their lives to come do "jobs Americans just won't do".In any case, you don't seem either to be proposing a solution or practical alternative program, nor do you seem to have much interest in one.
In every other circumstance, parents who won't care for their children are charged with dependent neglect (or similar charge depending on the locale), why should this be different?Rather, it's a matter of trying to assign blame and make sure that the poor are properly punished for their bad choices--including of course poor children who rather foolishly chose the wrong parents.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Gold Member
I'll respond to the remark bolded above. The rest IMO reflects simple callousness, willful ignorance, and lack of concern for fellow human beings.
Oprah turned out okay--much better than okay, actually--but it won't do to cherry-pick rare and spectacular Horatio Alger-like exceptions as a counterargument. Given a population of women who grew up in similar circumstances as Oprah, and went through what she did (the sexual abuse was not by her father, who wasn't there, but by other family members), and a different population of women that grew up in nice upper-middle-class suburbs in stable families, you will find that far far far more of the second group end up with decent lives. For instance, of Oprah's three half-siblings, one died of cocaine-related causes, another of AIDS (likely drug-related, I would say). The third was given up for adoption. Oprah herself probably caught a break owing to the fact that the child she gave birth to at age 14 died. Otherwise it's doubtful she would have had some of the opportunities that opened up to her later on. The other big break that Oprah caught was getting farmed out to her grandparents who were able to provide her with a more stable environment in her later teen years. These circumstances underline rather than refute my point. The fact that Oprah clawed her way out of her situation against the odds does not stand as much of a case that therefore we can/should pull the plug on food stamps, AFDC, public housing, etc., and everything will work out just fine.
I'd also point out that you are improperly playing both sides of the aggregate/individual fence: You can't use statistical arguments (as you do above) to say that single-parent households/out-of-wedlock births cause poverty, then use individual exceptions as supposed counterarguments to other statistical conclusions you like less.
Last edited by OliverH; 02-03-2012 at 06:43 PM.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
No I'm not. I am pointing out that once a person DECIDES to make their life better, nothing will stop them, and help will be largely irrelevant. The democrat system has fostered and encouraged apathy, dependency, and hopelessness. The fact that people can overcome such engineered oppression is even more astonishing and praiseworthy than overcoming a lack of funds.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Gold Member
Sorry, but again you are reaching conclusions and judgments about the "democrat" system, and imputing motivations to its architects, that don't follow from the facts. It's another example of how "confirmation bias" works.
You are also once more trying to have it both ways. You can't say that individual choices make help irrelevant, and virtually in the same breath claim that the evil "democrat" system keeps people in poverty. If it's sheerly a matter of people "deciding" to make their lives better, then the system or lack of system doesn't matter, does it? Either people's economic and social circumstances exert a strong influence on how their lives turn out and which choices they make (or are available to them), or they don't. Which is it?
Last edited by OliverH; 02-03-2012 at 07:43 PM.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
A 5'8 400 pound person will be " kept down" by.the plethora of commercials of chocolate goodness, McFood, and soft drinks until they decide that all the marketing schemes aren't really in their best interest. Once they realize and make that decision, their life will change with or without Jenny Craig's help.
Multi-generational welfare families teach their children government dependency is a foregone conclusion, until they see a reason to break the chains, marketing keeps them fat and happy on the plantation as well.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Gold Member
Do those in favor of the welfare state really think if the government quit paying people not to work that they would just sit around and starve? This is one of the areas that seem to really separate liberals and conservatives. The conservatives' position that people should take care of themselves is based on the belief that people can take care of themselves. And when they support themselves (even if not as well as when on welfare) they get self-respect and self-esteem and a feeling of having the capability to do more and improve themselves.
The liberals seem to say that if we took away their benefits, we would be throwing them (welfare recipients) to the wolves. They seem to have no faith in the human spirit and ingenuity, and definitely not for human dignity. Their beneficence is poisonous. Why should anyone try to figure out how to make a living when they're given just enough to be comfortable for doing nothing? And when, in fact, they will lose the "golden goose" if they actually go out and work? The system incentivizes unemployment. These people don't start out lazy, the system makes them that way. The ones who aren't find a way out, thus proving that there is a way out.
Moderator
I agree with most of your post. I agree that there are those that as long as there is another option but working, will keep taking door number two. But it is my believe that reality is neither conservative nor liberal. In reality both positions have merit is different areas and in different measures. Neither ideology got it perfect since ideologies have a tendency for blind spots and confirmation bias. The problem with eliminating entitlements at this time is that there are not enough jobs to go around, and the economy is not strong enough to help get a jump start on first-time home business or small business without starting capital. What will a portion of those people will do to survive if there are not enough jobs, regardless of how much they want to work? Is it possible that some will resort to crime, prostitution, and other illegal activities? How will this affect society and the economy? The effect of underground economy in mainstream economy is something many prefer to ignore.
I think individuals from both sides forget this is not a theoretical experiment where conditions are agreeable and all things are equal. These are real people with real human nature in a real stagnant economy in a reality where all things are not equal. Some are not willing to do anything to improve themselves regardless and prefer other methods that do not entail working 8 hours a day. Those individuals are out there and liberals have to come to terms with the reality of generational attitude of entitlement. Others need a push to get them off their butts. This is also a reality liberals need to be dealt with. But these two types do not describe the totality of the problem. There is more to poverty than laziness and lack of motivation, and this is where conservatives slip. There are a good portion that are trying to improve themselves, but face limitations that many in the "other side of the track" don't see or understand. They confuse these limitations with laziness. Then there are not enough jobs around and too many low paying jobs.
Is not enough to have a clear theory that explains poverty and how to deal with it. It is also necessary to remember that no matter how much we would like it, all things are not equal... not yet, any way. The fact that many do not experience these limitations doesn't negate that others do. It is not enough to know what to do; we must consider under what conditions the application of that theory has the best chance of working as desired.
Last edited by Preacher Man; 02-03-2012 at 10:33 PM.
Gold Member
I applaud Mr. Powernoodle for his efforts in this thread. I'm always amazed by the number of people that think that the citizenry is entirely incompetent to handle their own retirement plans and at the same time think that the government IS compentent to handle people's retirement plans all actual evidence to the contrary.
Gold Member
PM, one of the recurring themes I am seeing in your posts is jobs, jobs, jobs! This illustrates my point about how liberals see people - as dependent. Yes, there aren't enough jobs at the moment, purportedly because of the economy, but the lack of jobs also adds to our economic woes. My point is that, if their livelihood depended on it, most of those people would find a way to make a living even if they had to create it. Some of them might be one person businesses, but others would succeed and grow and thus supply jobs. Keeping people on welfare short-circuits this "forced creativity" and deprives both people and society of it's benefits. Remeber the saying "Necessity is the mother of invention"? You sure don't hear that much anymore.
Please note I said their livelihood, not their life. I don't believe that between the Salvation Army, churches, and private charities we would ever let people starve in this country. If necessary, the government could step in with food kitchens and bunkhouse-style shelters if there was a real concern over peoples' safety. This is a far cry from the welfare state we have let develop, where liberals defend the right of welfare recipients to a middle class lifestyle (why shouldn't they have cell phones, cars, and flatscreen TVs, eat steak, etc.). Welfare should be a temporary helping hand, not a lifestyle. As you pointed out (though with a different emphasis) its Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -it doesn't say the "handout of happiness". Nobody owes a person a job, a meal, or a dollar. We are all equal. If I end up poorer than those welfare recipients, am I justified in helping myself to what they have? Does being poor or unemployed invest you with "extra" rights?
I believe there will always be people willing to help those in need, and I don't think anyone will try to stop them. It isn't charity when it is forced by the state, so the welfare state denies people the chance to practice real charity - they figure the government is taking care of it.
The thing you don't see from the "right-side" of the tracks, as you put it, is that even the people who would like to get off welfare feel trapped - the system is not set up to get people off of it. You almost can't blame people who don't want to risk their free apartment, monthly check and foodstamps in order to go to work. You bring up crime and prostitution - do you not know that many of them already supplement their income that way? After all, they do have all day, right? Not to mention learning how to play the system (all that fraud we've been discussing).
Moderator
I agree with most of your post. I too think that welfare should be a helping hand or a social net that avoids the worse financial consequences of joblessness, chronic sickness, or old age in society, but this help should be temporary (except for the old or the chronicly sick who can't make it on their own). I also agree that the system must be transformed is a way that better helps those in welfare to transition into working again, probably by joining forces with private industry providing training in areas where there is a demand for skilled workers.
I think where we disagree is in the certainty that anyone could create a successful small business. I don't think anyone is capable of creating and successfully running a small business. There are personality elements and administration talents involved in the planning, development, administration, and running of such a business that not everyone has. I agree that some individuals do have those characteristics and it is not until they are forced to do so that they discover this talent. But others who try it just waste their time and money, since they could be excellent sailors, and maybe a good XO, but they make terrible captains. Running a business, large or small requires leadership skills, even it is just leading yourself, and not everyone is cut to be a leader.
The ethics of the welfare program are complex on it surface. There are two sides, givers and receivers. Not all receivers are comfortable receiving, others accept the help while trying to get out of it as soon as possible, while others are a little too happy to receive as long as possible without attempting to better themselves. On the receiving side, there are those who are happy giving, as individuals or as a society, others prefer to help voluntarily and individually, but resent the idea of been forced to help in particular ways through taxation, while others refuse to help in any way, shape, or form. But the problem is that just as the morals of a society represent the dominant view of the majority of citizens, so does its social and economic policies. This means that of those different attitudes and preferences, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A GROUP of the aforementioned preferences that will be unhappy with the way society chooses to deal with the problem poverty. As long as our system emphasizes the will of the people, those unhappy with the system must either deal with it, to seek ways to change the opinion of the people. The easiest way out some see is to try to impose their will on the majority through a number legal, moral, or governmental justifications. Social mores are pendular, they periodically change from one side of the ideological spectrum to the other. It's just a matter of time before things go their way. But some just don't want to wait for this and prefer to mandate their view regardless of the will of the people, and in my opinion that is much more morally problematic than the first problem. Welfare is here to stay for a while. When the economy improves and unemployment/underemployment diminishes there will be changes in the social mores regarding welfare programs. That is the time to fix them/ change them / eliminate them or whatever. My preference is to fix so they are available when and where the economic conditions require them. Also to shape them in a way that better encourages/help recipients to transition into work while punishing abuse of the system; but that is just me.
Last edited by Preacher Man; 02-07-2012 at 02:49 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks