Slowing Progress or March On?

[J.P.]

It is hard trying to word this exactly but make what you can of it.

Two options on the vote.

Option 1.

You are for the strongest survive; the motivated deserve what they have in life; lazy people get what they get because they are lazy; things must slow down to carry the lazy and help them along; your willing to stop for the truly unfortunate ones; Your not willing to slow progress for because of the lazy.

Option 2.

You’re for helping everyone; you’re ok with slowing progress to carry the lazy; you’re willing to stop for the truly unfortunate ones; Everyone should help everyone regardless of why they are where they are in life.

[RobSoVIP]

Im all for slowing down and helping. However, the way you worded the second choice, its obvious where you stand.

Originally Posted by jpa2400

Option 2.

You’re for helping everyone; you’re ok with slowing progress to carry the lazy; you’re willing to stop for the truly unfortunate ones; Everyone should help everyone regardless of major mistakes and constant bad choices they make because this is America and we are all Americans so help each other.

1) Why include the lazy. Are you trying to steer people away from this option. I don't know if you are aware of this or not... but Clinton reformed welfare... Its not simply "help for the lazy or for the people who constantly make poor choices.

*Now dont get me wrong, its not perfect... infact its got a long way to come, but I think its headed in the right direction.

Clinton Era welfare reforms included:

Reflecting the new federal mission, welfare rules now:

-Require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance,
-Limit most assistance to five years total, and
-Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.

2) Don't we all make a bad decision atleast one time in our life. With out our family, and community it would be impossible to rebound. However, with the help of the people that care we can get back out there, fix our wrong, and learn from the mistake.

3) I feel no sympathy for somebody who is simply "riding the system." However, I don't think its entirely their fault (although it is their decision...) I believe that it is up to the government to provide more training programs, more opportunites, major inner-city educational reform, and lastly- we need legislation that not only helps sombody with money, but also helps with learning. You know the saying... " give a man a fish and he'll eat that night, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life." (or somehting along those lines.)

4) Lastly, your right at the end... This is America, we are all Americans, and all Americans are part of a team. When somebody on a team is having trouble, the other memebers of the team need to pick up the slack. Remember to treat others how you would want to be treated... you never know when you could be in need of help.

[J.P.]

Originally Posted by sc400texas

Im all for slowing down and helping. However, the way you worded the second choice, its obvious where you stand.

Fair statement my man

Reworded it a bit.

[Lil4X]

I think I understand what you are saying here – should those of us who are strong, fortunate, blessed, or creative help the weak, unfortunate, and unmotivated? To some extent, yes, we must help those unable to help themselves. We may not provide a man three meals a day, but we can teach him to fish and give him the opportunity to feed himself and his family for a lifetime. We should provide a safety net to support those who have fallen on hard times, but we are not responsible to feed and clothe the healthy and the able-bodied for life.

That was the original principle of our welfare system, to help pick people up, put them on their feet and give them a second chance. We can teach them job skills, homemaking skills, even parenting skills, but we cannot assume responsibility for those who will not work. Some of a pseudo-scientific nature have called this “social Darwinism”, survival of the fittest – thinning the herd as it were, to eliminate the slow, the lazy, and the disaffected. It smells of Eugenics.

Many in this nation have abused “welfare” to make it a lifestyle. When welfare becomes a normal part of the culture, hope, ambition, even motivation disappears. People trapped in the lifestyle live from one welfare check, one poverty program to the next – with no specific avenue of escape. They become totally dependant on “the government”, and in turn they expect “the government” to do everything for them. In trading enterprise for security they have enslaved themselves – but they had a lot of help.

Why does this happen? Who does it profit to enslave a large population? While there are some honest, hard workers in these areas, there is an establishment of corruption among those who “serve” the underclass.

• Politicians – those who would want to appear to be the great providers, distributing their largess to “the people” in exchange for votes. Yes, political power is the name of this slave ship, and while “the people” may pull at the oars, it is the politician beating the drum.
• Poverty Professionals – sometimes called “poverty pimps”, which is disgraceful to pimps everywhere . . . these are the people on the fringes of politics who profit by overseeing poverty programs and collecting grants for conducting “studies” of the underclass. They produce little if anything of value to their community – considering the huge sums of money they seem to absorb.
• Exploiters – outside organizations, the phony “trade schools” that teach no marketable skill at government expense, smothering the small embers of ambition that could have flared into flames of hope. Businesses too, who prey on unskilled and under-represented workers offer temporary, or dead-end jobs without a future, steal ambition. The fast-buck artists that are long on promise, but short on delivery – offering some dream in exchange for what few pennies may remain. Worse, the “churches” that are more concerned with converting cash than teaching the Word – they steal faith and hope from those who may have nothing more than that to call their own.

The result could be seen in the wake of Katrina on the Gulf Coast. Over most of the strike area, when the rain stopped, people went to work. They moved to high ground, they began to clear roads, to pick up the remaining fragments of their lives and make plans for the future, no matter how small they might be. They went to work to clear the debris of their homes, utility companies began immediately to re-establish critical services, and although it will take years to recover, they rolled up their sleeves and tore into it.

In the poverty pockets of New Orleans Lower Ninth, people simply sat . . . waiting for “the government” to rescue them, to bring them food and water, to take them a few blocks to high ground. Those that were dry and sheltered simply sat, waiting on their next meal, not even bothering to pick up their own trash. Certainly many were sick or elderly, but most gave no thought to organizing the able-bodied into teams to clean the area, distribute food, clothing, and essential supplies. They didn’t even bother to cover the dead – they simply waited for “the government” to do it for them.

We cannot blame these people for their situation. It isn’t because they are stupid or lazy, as some might suggest. WE TAUGHT THEM to be that way. WE CREATED the welfare culture where all you have to do is stick your hand out, and you get something. THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT to expect us to do it again.

The solution for these people is employment - a real job with real training and real opportunity. Whether we develop “enterprise zones” similar to those in our border towns where tax relief, low interest loans, and other incentives will attract industry, or by developing a skilled labor pool in these poverty pockets to create a talent base for new businesses in the area – it’s all about teaching a man to fish . . . .

[J.P.]

Originally Posted by sc400texas

Im all for slowing down and helping. However, the way you worded the second choice, its obvious where you stand.



1) Why include the lazy. Are you trying to steer people away from this option. I don't know if you are aware of this or not... but Clinton reformed welfare... Its not simply "help for the lazy or for the people who constantly make poor choices.

*Now dont get me wrong, its not perfect... infact its got a long way to come, but I think its headed in the right direction.

Clinton Era welfare reforms included:


2) Don't we all make a bad decision atleast one time in our life. With out our family, and community it would be impossible to rebound. However, with the help of the people that care we can get back out there, fix our wrong, and learn from the mistake.

3) I feel no sympathy for somebody who is simply "riding the system." However, I don't think its entirely their fault (although it is their decision...) I believe that it is up to the government to provide more training programs, more opportunites, major inner-city educational reform, and lastly- we need legislation that not only helps sombody with money, but also helps with learning. You know the saying... " give a man a fish and he'll eat that night, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life." (or somehting along those lines.)

4) Lastly, your right at the end... This is America, we are all Americans, and all Americans are part of a team. When somebody on a team is having trouble, the other memebers of the team need to pick up the slack. Remember to treat others how you would want to be treated... you never know when you could be in need of help.

Sigh, I didn't even bring it up yet here comes the Clinton \ Bush stuff...............

In my mind, there is a big diff between;

"lazy"

and

"truly unfortunate ones"

[1SICKLEX]

Charles Darwin.

Nuff said.

[jet864]

Lil4x, I reallly appreciate your insightful reply, especially after so many people that I have talked with who are politically opposed to myself try to oversimplify topics such as welfare. It takes a lot of talking to even begin to break into it. This is a topic that has been in need of an official response for long enough. Even with its good roots in mind, it's interesting to see people from my generation talk the whole system down like it's some sort of evil, when it's the people who exploit it who give it a bad name. There are gonna be those who take advantage of things like this and its a shame and I really don't have an answer for that.

It's always great to see people pull themselves up from the underclass and become someone successful all on their own, but those who are not able, IMO, don't deserve the title of lazy, or unwilling to work. With equalized education for all people, I fully believe there will be people now who aren't capable of achieving their fullest.

While I don't think we should wait around for those who are taking advantage of a good thing, we should reform how we do it and give more people chances through programs etc so we won't have to worry about free loaders.

I'm really sorry about the quality of this post. I had something else written out but accidentally closed the window. Oh well.

James

[killswitch]

My God...it's so good to see some politically savvy talk on a Lexus Website. Realize this, my friends: I have been in MANY MANY car clubs in my time, and never once have I heard a political conversation more civilized than a lot of cussing and bashing each other.

Now, to the question:

Example: a poor kid in a not-so-great neighborhood makes a bad decision that could escalate into a life of crime. He is surrounded by kids that made the same decision, and his parents (or single mother) work two jobs to make sure that they can pay the rent and have enough money for food. There is no college fund set up for the kids, and because the parental figure is gone a lot of the time, the kid doesn't have a lot of guidance. He goes to a school with a very high population, and his teachers care but they can't see into the details of every child because the classes are too full. He walks home from school and along the way he sees drug deals, etc, being dealt out of killer cars. It's not that he doesn't know it's illegal---he does. But he is lost in the shuffle, and it looks like a good alternative.

His "bad" decision doesn't mean he's lazy OR stupid, it's just an amalgamation of all the failures of not only the government, but society. Should he get caught, it's harder on Mom to watch the other son, because she has to pay a babysitter while her oldest son does time in jail. Maybe she even loses her second job because she had to call out too many times to take care of that youngest son while he was ill. And so she needs government help in the form of welfare. This resulted because of a culmination of things that weren't her fault...like a failing school system, etc.

"Only the strong survive" can only be partially equated to the social jungle. I know a lot of "weak people" that aren't very smart, and they're doing QUITE well because of their families, etc. I can think of a lot of examples that are making BANK, have a great life, but have about a 70 IQ. Should these people NOT help the less fortunate? Damn straight they SHOULD. I would bet my brand new Boyd Coddington rims that if the rich folks out there were in the shoes of the poor, they would feel entitled to some assistance.

I agree with part of the solution being EMPLOYMENT. But this too, is complicated---if we offer all these folks minimum wage labor with poor conditions and ill treatment (like that found at most fast food resteraunts), we can't expect any change! It has to be a decent job with fair pay and fair conditions and an emphasis on teaching job skills and life management. Most of the people I know that are in bad situations would love to have a fair chance to get out of it, and make a better life.

Also---socialized Day Care culd help exponentially. A majority of the kids in prison currently came from single-parent households. I'm not dissing single mothers, because I was raised by one. But I know how hard it is to keep everything together in that situation. If we had socialized Day Care to take care of the children while the parents could work, I think the mothers could focus on the job and make decent wages without worrying about the kids. And the kids would have a structured learning environment so that when they started school they would have a head start on things, and not set in motion a lifetime of being behind in school. I think that this "investment" into the children of the poor could help turn around a vicious cycle of poor begets poor.

[jet864]

Wow, welcome to CL. We try to keep things civilized here for the most part, and I think this debate forum shows how we can all still respectfully disagree.

Your post had many great points and the one about working just to work was one I wanted to address. It's interesting, because while it would be ideal to get people into the work force, the age old point of "somebody has to be the garbage man/janitor/burger flipper" rises again. I don't think many people, if given the opportunity to choose would gladly go and clean up bathrooms. It needs to be done, and for the fabric of society, it's BENEFICIAL to have these people who are in desperation and have to work these jobs. There will always be disproportionalities, even if those in poverty now were making $40k, there would be trillionaires running the world. Just like in life sciences, where chemical equilibrium means death and a gradient must be retained to facilitate reactions, as is society where we NEED the poor to do things no one else will, and the powerful few to rule the many. It's nor pretty, but that's the way things seem to be.......IMO.

James

[J.P.]

Topic is to big to really get it out the way I wanted to, but keep writing, lots of good posts!

Add some fuel to the fire....

People are nit picking on the word lazy, when I say lazy I mean LAZY not someone who has had a bad childhood or bad run of luck and we quickly label them lazy.....

This Topic came up on the radio last week just as I was pulling into the office so I never caught it, but the debate sounded interesting.

Is America's progress being held back because we have to carry so many?

I will admit I have an extremely bias view because I came from nothing, so keep that in mind...

I don't want to start a Dem vs. Rep thread please... Just to note

Not political party related or bashing, note that too. But I was listening to my own Mom this weekend complain about the possible home interest deduction going bye bye (not saying I agree or disagree with the policy) but she went on and on how that couple thousand dollars a year would really make a difference to her and her husband and this is a true sign of the middle class disappearing.

ALL I could think is, your perfectly healthy. No "reason" you have to stay home (kids, medical etc) yet you haven't worked a job in 10 years....... Math shall we? 1 year at $7.50 an hour bagging grocery's 32 hours a week.. Lets just say $12,000 \ year. Lets say to make it easy, they take 3k in taxes leaving her with $9,000.

Your saying the 2k a year you lose on the tax break will lower your standard of living but you could make 5 times as much as that tax break, at your level of living how much of a difference would that make?

When I keep saying making stupid mistakes I mean;

Example - I cannot afford college.

You afforded that new watch pretty good eh? And those trips to the casino... and the $1500 tax refund you got you went to Florida with, and those new rims are hot.... Sorry man, if you grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth then you may not know, but I seen it all growing up and I still see it back in the neighborhood when I go home.

EVERYONE wants to complain, but no one wants to WORK HARD and spend money on stuff THAT MATTERS.

If you want to not upgrade your skills, go to school and work the extra hours to make it happen, why should we sit around waiting for you to progress when it will never happen? It's like you can throw the PATCH at smokers all day long but unless they want to quit it won't work.

Middle class is gone because of policy or because people are not as hard working \ motivated as they use to be? The older CL folks I would love to here what you think since I am too young to know.

[RobSoVIP]

Let me explain where I stand and why...
1) I have always supported federalized funding, education, and help for those struggling. With out a strong middle class, America is no different than any other 3rd world country with the "Haves and the Have Nots"

2) I have a family who rents the housenear my neighborhood... Its a family consisting of a Father who works as a centralized AC repair man, his wife, and two kids (inbetween 16-20 I would figure, I dont really know their age.) It is clear that the mother has mental problems. The daughter and son are out of school, and stay at the house all day. The son will usually poke his head in the garage when we are working on cars to say hi and see whats happening (he likes RC cars and I give him my old car mags... but he has no Drivers License.) One day when we were talking about cars, I said, "why dont you try to get a job somewhere and start saving so you can take drivers ed, and get a car." His response floored me... He said, " becuase I get $700/month becuase Im ADD." Im not well versed in family law, nor wellfare / social security for the disabled... but, I dont think ADD is covered under the current legislation. So Im thinking he has bigger issues that ADD, regardless, from my assesment this kid is able to work and has no disability stopping him from sacking groceries, doing construction, etc... However, the parents keep him and his sister at home, and deny them the right to work for the $1400 they recieve from the Gov. (the sister is in the same situation and they both seem to be fine sitting on the ass all day.) This type of family, the type that is simply relying on the system and not attempting to better their situation with the aid provided, is something that I really think needs to end. Im all for helping out the unfortunate, but I do not like to see my tax dollars going to this family so they can sit around on their ass all day while Im driving to work. (Now Im on a rant here, so hang with me...) To make matters worse, they claimed storm damage with FEMA due to Rita. Galveston got very little damage from the storm, my power was out for 3 hours! However, they some how convinced the federal inspectors that they had damage caused by Rita... and got what I would presume is a fairly hefty check (I am assuming this becuase they currently have a plasma TV box, a new home stereo box, and several other boxes sitting next to their garbage cans at the moment. So these people took the money that FEMA provided them with to fix what is wrong with their house and spent it on TV's, stereo's, and "toys." Im sorry, I have no heart for somebody who is relying on the system while not planning on bettering themselves in order to change their situation.

So to summarize my confusing rant where I seem to both support and not support social welfare... Im all for it, as long as its used as a crutch, not as a couch!