| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2296
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevenbard wrote: | The troubled people were turned out by the aclu. Yes it is Gil, and I have nothing but admiration for him, as I see him working every day, unlike so many welfare recipients with flat screen TV's., cell phones, and cars.
He is the ultimate green citizen, not a hypocrite, but a hero. C'mon all you welfare recipients, do stuff like Gil around the hood!
ps. History of the decline of Rome: "The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished." |
Did you ever ask Gil why he's living in Malibu rather than Compton? It's just down the road. Gil's situation lacks any connection to most urban welfare recipients whom you endlessly chide for apparent sloth.
Welfare receipt that crosses generations can contribute to the problems of low expectation and a declining neighborhood. But accusations of laziness fail to acknowledge the subjective nature of personal expectations. Would you blame the North Koreans for failing to understand that life can be better outside the brainwashed society?
You and I each work with kids, right? Why don't your posts reflect the understanding that kids mimic the perspectives of those ahead of them and set goals according to their small environment? Cloistering happens in the inner city just as much as in Montecito, but is counteracted by engaged teachers and alternative examples of successful living. One of my kids grew up within 2 miles of our school but believed it was futile to study hard because he simply would not succeed and had no money for college anyway. He simply didn't see the point of hard work until changing schools to one that provided concrete examples of the success that follows diligent work.
Declaring that everyone must raise themselves with their own boot straps as a matter of public policy simply fails to recognize the complex set of reasons that create and perpetuate poverty.
As for Reagan's role in creating a new homeless population consisting of mentally ill, he lobbied for a way to cut State spending on the mentally ill and signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. The Act was crafted in response to a shifting understanding of mental illness and the violation of the civil rights of people deemed mentally ill without judicial process. The ACLU certainly was involved in raising awareness of this issue, as was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." The problem with the Act was that it addressed involuntary arrest with boxing gloves rather than an examined and realistic approach. For example, the Act that allowed physicians to involuntarily detain people for 72 hours who committed violent acts or who could not provide for their own safety and welfare due to mental illness. This specifically addressed the concern of institutionalization without due process but failed to recognize that 72 hours is rarely enough time to stabilize someone with medication. Too many ill people showed peaks of stability during their 5150 hearing and were released, only to de-compensate after being off the meds. Homelessness often followed. Blaming the ACLU for homelessness when it campaigned to protect everyone's 14th Amendment rights is just plain wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In a classroom cartoon, a pie-eyed student named Pelosi is answering the teacher's question, "Where do jobs come from?" with "The stork brings them ... on a government-funded jet". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Civilian or Military Jet?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan, you are a very thoughtful guy. I just can't wrap my arms around big government.
The truth is that welfare has destroyed hope. It has destroyed many African Americans. Did you know that prior to LBJ, blacks in America had thriving small businesses and job skills in a much greater % than today? They had intact families. They were in deed pulling themselves up by the boot straps like the early American settlers did a century earlier.
Basic food, and modest shelter is all anyone on welfare deserves. Clothes at the salvation army allowance. After 5 years on welfare they should have to sell anything that is not school or job related.
There is a labor exchange near me that provides food, transportation $ and a place to hang out as they wait for work. (in addition to welfare/unemp ins) No one there works for less than $100 per day plus food. They are mostly good workers and eventually get $150 per day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a very strong correlation between welfare recipients and mental illness. Without funding for treatment of underlying mental illnesses many people are not capable of going to work.
Unfortunately, many states choose to cut funding of mental health centers instead of funding ways to use treatment protocols to help people work.
Mental illness is not a choice! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are correct cob, but they seem to function well enough to put dish network on their landlords roof, and use the cell phones. WHY IS IT MY FAULT THAT THEIR MOTHER SMOKED CRACK WHEN THEY WERE IN THE WOMB?
Take away their toys after so many years, and they'll straighten up. 2 years on unemployment plus 5 on welfare is enough. Intervention by necessity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perfect example of Colorado's inability to deal with this...
The local mental health center in my town had a program that provided a means for people to HIRE mentally ill clients to mow lawns, shovel snow, clean up vacant properties etc. Successful program.
As part of a state spending cut that included capitation of treatment for mental health services, the administration for this program was eliminated. Program gone.
Now, these folks are not working at all and are decompensating. Working, as part of their treatment, appears to be beneficial.
Sometimes a little more spending is a good thing!
That said, I agree that we need to break the cycle of poverty and welfare. To do this, you have to fund programs as above, investigate fraud and supply education and training. So often, these programs get the ax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2296
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | You are correct cob, but they seem to function well enough to put dish network on their landlords roof, and use the cell phones. WHY IS IT MY FAULT THAT THEIR MOTHER SMOKED CRACK WHEN THEY WERE IN THE WOMB?
Take away their toys after so many years, and they'll straighten up. 2 years on unemployment plus 5 on welfare is enough. Intervention by necessity. |
Steven, nobody is blaming you for the statistical prospect of a crack baby. Where others and I take issue is in your apparent (and I strongly believe that you think differently than your posts literally suggest) confusion about the difference between blame and social responsibility. I humbly suggest that it is not nearly enough for a conservative to donate time/money in a way consistent with conservative, Federalist values while at the same time advocating for the elimination of programs that ensure hardship without coming forward with a decent legislative alternative to help alleviate the suffering.
You tend to employ sarcasm in a way that does a disservice to very serious subjects. I'm not saying that humor has no place as part of a healthy discussion, but humor is very different than vitriolic language. Welfare is an imperfect tool that's helped millions of people achieve some form of self-determination and while you might think that a laptop has no place in the hands of a welfare recipient, I suggest that high-speed internet and 300 channel TV is not terribly different today than a decent telephone line and a car was for many back in 1968.
Big Government is jargon employed by the GOP to imply whatever the recipient wishes it to mean and done broadly enough to mean just about anything. How big is too big, and in what areas? I walked into a small town donut shop last weekend and was shocked when I heard a group of middle-aged white guys say, " . . . and I'd eliminate the Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Ed. and the EPA. But we need to support the DOD." OK, fine. Old whipping boys make for easy coffee talk. I didn't expect what followed. "And what really pisses me off is the govt. bailout of the Jew banks. They control the Federal Reserve and are selling us out to the EU."
Really? Really? I put down my 1/2 dozen, turned around and wanted to say, "Did you know that the bonds for your new library were issued by one of those banks? I'd return those funds if I were you! And how about that Superfund site that abuts the golf club whose logo appears on your shirt? Without the EPA, you'd have to golf in -egad! downtown Hartford."
But I didn't. I just paid for my donuts and thought about how well the GOP has marketed the idea that they are the party of small government, of family values and all those platitudes. People really buy these lines. Reagan did just that when signing the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. He said that he thought community health centers would address the turnout from the state mental institutions. Unsurprisingly, Reagan failed to provide funding for these local programs. And so it goes with the GOP, proclaiming death to big government while providing unfunded mandates to state and local authorities tasked with picking up the slack.
Lest the style of this post resemble Mr. Fick's, The End. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I respect both of you guys opinion, but big government and big business can only lead to one bad outcome. A flat tax and smaller government would go a long way to ending some abuses.
As for welfare, it destroys self worth over time.
My wife's family (10 bros and sisters) came from Mexico, and picked fruit. Now half of them are millionaires and the others incredibly successful professionals. They never received welfare. They worked hard and got athletic scholarships. Continued to work hard, and acheived big success.
How did they do it without big government? Drug test welfare recipients and you'd loose a third. I'll bet another third could run the 100 meters faster than me.
Necessity is the mother of invention. America was better prior to the big welfare state.
Q: How did a bunch of Mexicans in the 1950's and 60's make it in this horribly prejudiced and inequitable country? A: They worked harder than us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2296
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | I respect both of you guys opinion, but big government and big business can only lead to one bad outcome. A flat tax and smaller government would go a long way to ending some abuses.
As for welfare, it destroys self worth over time.
My wife's family (10 bros and sisters) came from Mexico, and picked fruit. Now half of them are millionaires and the others incredibly successful professionals. They never received welfare. They worked hard and got athletic scholarships. Continued to work hard, and acheived big success.
How did they do it without big government? Drug test welfare recipients and you'd loose a third. I'll bet another third could run the 100 meters faster than me.
Necessity is the mother of invention. America was better prior to the big welfare state.
Q: How did a bunch of Mexicans in the 1950's and 60's make it in this horribly prejudiced and inequitable country? A: They worked harder than us. |
The example of your brothers-in-law doesn't speak to all who might benefit from government assistance. Likewise, that they are hard working does not mean that others are not.
Good, hard-working people can find themselves in need of a helping hand just as much as those less inclined to what others would call hard work. It's simply unfair to generalize about an entire spectrum of people based on the extreme ends other than perhaps to conclude that the vast majority of those in the middle are nothing like those on the ends!
I agree that people can succumb to the thought that welfare is the only way to live, but don't make the mistake of blaming that perspective on welfare itself. Stagnation is a common ailment across the socio-economic strata and is not unique to the poor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
