Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 11

The patient, mother of a month-old baby, was crying on the phone because for the past two days she had been tormented by head lice (Pediculosis capitis, if you really want to know). A simple problem,... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    Kinda like how I pay more in taxes as a single person so that those who are married with dependents are allowed to pay less?

    I see your point.
    Do you? How is it the government's business how much you make or how your family is comprised? I think you are trying to make an obvious comparison that counters my argument. From my viewpoint, your comparison is CONSISTENT with my argument.

    As far as misery loves company, you really think being an economic slave to social welfare is LESS miserable? You really think the intellectual damage of having your own government, your fellow people, declare you to be a loser makes up for temporary support?

    You really think that the generations of fatherless kids we have created because we made fatherhood optional is compassionate?

    Just how damaging IS the notion that able-bodied poor can't help themselves? It's devastating. It's cruel. A much more pragmatic and compassionate message: try harder.

    Misery is relative. We've made it worse, in the name of compassion. But then, that compassion was always about expiating our own guilt and NEVER about bringing our fellow citizens along. We haven't brought them along; we've enslaved them TO poverty.

    The lowest 20% of wage earners have, on average, one PART-TIME wage earner per household. Do you know the ticket to being in that lowest 20%? Simple. Social welfare. The people that STAY in the lowest 20% only do so because we pay them to. Rising tides raise all boats, except for the ones we shackled down.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 5, '08
  2. by   BlueRidgeHomeRN
    Quote from zashagalka

    "need is a powerful motivator. unless you take it away. for the entirety of human history, the need to provide for children has necessitated an entire family structure, bent to the task.

    social welfare, like most gov't programs, is a far worse solution than the problem. i'm against it because i'm simply more compassionate than that.

    if we ended every single federal program that is means tested, today, this nation and more important, our poor, would be much better off.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    thank you for articulating my thoughts so well.

    the "bad old days" prohibitions about premartial sex and the resulting pregnancies was a reflection of the need for children to have two parents.....and for fathers -to-be to step up to the plate (or be made seriously unhappy by the mom-to-be's own father) should youthful passion reign for a couple.

    please don't send me info on unhappy forced marriages and spouse abuse--which we all agree are horrible potential consequences of the above. do today's numbers of the above look better???

    i firmly believe that most social problems are created when children don't grow up with fathers. in 50 years, i have seen nothing [other than disease (physical and mental)] that can't somehow be traced back to this problem.
  3. by   EmmaG
    eh, snarky reply. sorry
    Last edit by EmmaG on Feb 5, '08
  4. by   EmmaG
    Clearly there are some who defraud the system, just as there are many who truly DO need the help to get through some tough times.

    What I'm hearing is an attitude that harkens back to grade school--- punishing the entire class because one kid acts up, rather than dealing with the one who breaks the rules. So because there are some receiving public assistance by fraud, that means no one should receive it.

    And what was that again about personal responsibility?

    There are limits to how long someone can be on assistance. Here, there is a five-year lifetime cap. They will help you up to that point, then you're on your own. I think that is a reasonable compromise; it allows for people to get their lives turned around and get the training/education needed to make a go of it. The days of living your life on welfare are long gone.
  5. by   BlueRidgeHomeRN
    Quote from emmanuel goldstein
    so they should just go out and get a job with adequate pay and bennies.

    why didn't i think of that???
    #1--can we remember how to disagree without being disagreable or disrespectful?:innerconf

    #2--i stand by the observation about fatherless homes. to get a job, you need an education. to get an education, you must stay in school. we are all familiar with the data about single parent homes and educational level achieved. the circle must be stopped. not everyone will be a nuclear engineer, but we need skilled tradesmen, too.

    #3-i can only speak for myself, but i don't think anyone wants a five year old to starve on the streets--only for him or her to stay in school and not become a parent with no skills and an eighth grade education. stop the cycle, or our grandchildren will be having this debate in 2058.:redpinkhe
  6. by   EmmaG
    Quote from blueridgehomern
    #1--can we remember how to disagree without being disagreable or disrespectful?:innerconf

    #2--i stand by the observation about fatherless homes. to get a job, you need an education. to get an education, you must stay in school. we are all familiar with the data about single parent homes and educational level achieved. the circle must be stopped. not everyone will be a nuclear engineer, but we need skilled tradesmen, too.

    #3-i can only speak for myself, but i don't think anyone wants a five year old to starve on the streets--only for him or her to stay in school and not become a parent with no skills and an eighth grade education. stop the cycle, or our grandchildren will be having this debate in 2058.:redpinkhe
    you're right. i edited the post. i do apologize to all.

    i think the five-year cap is a great idea. give them what they need to get their lives in order... daycare assistance, vocational guidance, etc., so that they can get that education and break that cycle. i have no problem paying taxes to support this kind of assistance, because i know that in the end they will be a productive (tax-paying!) citizen. it's win-win for us all.

    i read tim's responses as wanting to do away with taxes altogether ["get the government out of everything", his comments about keeping all of his money] if i'm wrong, i hope he clarifies his position. that is simply fantasy. forget about 'welfare' or education (the two biggies) for a moment. unless you're going to live in a hut as a hermit somewhere and are totally self-reliant, you are part of a socialized system whether you like it or not. fire and police protection, clean water, roads and infrastructure, for example--- all tax supported and they benefit us all as a society.

    just consider for a moment that all taxes were done away with; sure, you'd get to keep that x% of your paycheck... but consider too what would disappear from our lives. do you really want to live like that?
    Last edit by EmmaG on Feb 5, '08
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    Clearly there are some who defraud the system, just as there are many who truly DO need the help to get through some tough times.

    What I'm hearing is an attitude that harkens back to grade school--- punishing the entire class because one kid acts up, rather than dealing with the one who breaks the rules. So because there are some receiving public assistance by fraud, that means no one should receive it.

    And what was that again about personal responsibility?

    There are limits to how long someone can be on assistance. Here, there is a five-year lifetime cap. They will help you up to that point, then you're on your own. I think that is a reasonable compromise; it allows for people to get their lives turned around and get the training/education needed to make a go of it. The days of living your life on welfare are long gone.
    NO.

    You are under the impression that I think the whole system should be gutted because some abuse it and you think that wouldn't be fair to those that actually use the system responsibly.

    Except. That's not my opinion.

    My opinion is that the system itself is the abuser. I wouldn't be OK with the system if we could just weed out the abusers. The whole system is broken and can never be fixed. The gov't simply can't be that broker.

    Look. Religion is an important concept. EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN RELIGION, the major subtance of religion is society building. Murder, stealing, etc. - why do we have laws against such things in a secular society? Aren't we introducing religion into gov't when we outlaw murder?

    Of course not. But most religions put forth a reliable code of conduct: don't lie, don't steal, don't murder. But also, marriage and two-parent families. These codes exist for a reason, religion aside. Even today, I was reading about studies that say married people are generally happier and live longer.

    Why is this?

    It's this simple: if you do THESE TWO THINGS, you will not be poor: 1. Work full time. 2. Raise children within a marriage. (Add education and not only will you not be poor; you'll be well off.)

    Bingo. That's it. Morality has a purpose! Look back through this thread. EVERY SINGLE story about 'NEEDING' gov't aid involves some breakdown in those two things. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Yes, people cheat, and they are abusive. THAT is why we used to have long courtships; to rule out those that would be those kinds of mates. Not anymore; since there is no penalty for mistakes, mistakes abound! It's cause, and effect.

    The problem is that using the gov't to entitle benefits serves to divorce morality and accountability from assistance. You suggest that some people use aid wisely, and some don't. You can't differentiate between the two without introducing a healthy dose of morality into individual situations.

    In other words, true charity involves local people not just giving aid, but attaching to that aid the morality of improvement.

    The gov't cannot do that with entitlement. Entitlements are not charity. They are no-morality- strings-attached handouts. Without that morality, we have only furthered behaviors that lead to more bad behaviors.

    We've added insult to injury.

    Ayn Rand said, in Atlas Shrugged, that only those people that didn't need the money should be allowed to inherit money. Why? Because only those that didn't need it would know how to manage it. The same applies here: only those that don't need gov't assistance should ever be allowed to qualify for it. Why?

    Because the people that don't know how to manage their own money or affairs aren't fit to handle money that comes from me.

    To expect them to manage what you give them is irresponsible. To expect to micro-manage it for them is condescending and evil.

    I fully understand what you expect to accomplish with gov't entitlements. It just won't work; it'll never work. It's not that I disagree with your motives; I just disagree with the vastly unworkable framework of gov't for accomplishing those goals.

    The free market and a dose of morality are the best tickets out of poverty. The gov't is the antithesis of both.

    The result: trillions of dollars later it is no surprise that we are no closer to ending poverty than when we started. And no amount of dollars or programs will EVER make a dent in a problem that cannot be solved by gov't.

    The gov't just makes things worse. As it always does. The gov't is nobody's friend. Now, we don't just have poverty; we have the devastation of community that making fatherhood optional has brought to our poor communities.

    Killing our communities isn't progress and it isn't compassionate.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 6, '08
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    Unless you're going to live in a hut as a hermit somewhere and are totally self-reliant, you are part of a socialized system whether you like it or not. Fire and police protection, clean water, roads and infrastructure, for example--- all tax supported and they benefit us all as a society.
    And all done better by private entities.

    I only support the Federal gov't providing for only those things listed in their Constitutionally limited enumeration of powers.

    Nothing else. They have no Constitutional authority for anything else.

    The States are different; they can provide for all the water, fire, and police they or their local representatives choose to provide.

    The Federal gov't is limited in its power. That was done on purpose, to prevent most of what you propose.

    In point of fact, you would NOT have to be a hermit to live in a society where the gov't leaves you alone. Such a society would be just the opposite; it would be liberating.

    You cannot name me a single thing the gov't does that can't be done better by private, profit motivated entities. Mail? Please, FEDEX revolutionized that; not the gov't. Schools? Please, most private schools provide superior education at half the cost of public schools. Roads? Please, toll roads are better maintained and more quickly built.

    The military is the only exception of note. And here, this is NOT because the gov't is somehow better at military building; it's because the competition is invariably put together by governments in other nation-states.

    Kill the gov't. We'd all be better off. I think our budget for next year should, instead of being 3 trillion dollars, be much less that a trillion. Maybe about 650 million; 450 million for the military and 200 million for EVERYTHING ELSE.

    Nothing good would disappear from my life; the freedom to choose free-market supplied options, unhampered by gov't, would explode.

    If I were President, this would be my motto: "Veto EVERYTHING."

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 5, '08
  9. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Do you? How is it the government's business how much you make or how your family is comprised? I think you are trying to make an obvious comparison that counters my argument. From my viewpoint, your comparison is CONSISTENT with my argument.

    As far as misery loves company, you really think being an economic slave to social welfare is LESS miserable? You really think the intellectual damage of having your own government, your fellow people, declare you to be a loser makes up for temporary support?

    You really think that the generations of fatherless kids we have created because we made fatherhood optional is compassionate?

    Just how damaging IS the notion that able-bodied poor can't help themselves? It's devastating. It's cruel. A much more pragmatic and compassionate message: try harder.

    Misery is relative. We've made it worse, in the name of compassion. But then, that compassion was always about expiating our own guilt and NEVER about bringing our fellow citizens along. We haven't brought them along; we've enslaved them TO poverty.

    The lowest 20% of wage earners have, on average, one PART-TIME wage earner per household. Do you know the ticket to being in that lowest 20%? Simple. Social welfare. The people that STAY in the lowest 20% only do so because we pay them to. Rising tides raise all boats, except for the ones we shackled down.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    are there states that still offer monies to people? i mean cash monies not just the fuel assistance which goes to teh suppliers and food stamps that are only usable at groceries - just wondering as i do know we dont in wisconsin anymore.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    are there states that still offer monies to people? i mean cash monies not just the fuel assistance which goes to teh suppliers and food stamps that are only usable at groceries - just wondering as i do know we dont in wisconsin anymore.
    I don't know. It doesn't matter. Fuel, food, and housing are fungible commodities; by supplying them, we are replacing monetary obligations so that portion of monthly needs do not consume monetary resources.

    The result is the same. The net result is a conservation of money.

    There are truly only four basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, transportation. If you can provide for all four, then you are not poor. If the gov't provides for all or most, then what does it matter if the gov't doesn't provide direct cash subsidy? At that point, any available money, or lack thereof, becomes discretionary.

    The gov't is welcome to pay for MY fuel, food, and housing. Of course, I'd rather have the money that it UnConstitutionally absconds from me.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 6, '08
  11. by   EmmaG
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    NO.

    You are under the impression that I think the whole system should be gutted because some abuse it and you think that wouldn't be fair to those that actually use the system responsibly.

    Except. That's not my opinion.
    Thank you for clarifying. I apologize that I misunderstood your position. I do want to discuss this further although I have a feeling it's going to end up being one of those 'agree to disagree' situations lol.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    Thank you for clarifying. I apologize that I misunderstood your position. I do want to discuss this further although I have a feeling it's going to end up being one of those 'agree to disagree' situations lol.
    Let's stipulate that we want the same thing: to improve the lot of the poor; to assist them in pulling themselves up out of poverty.

    What we really disagree about is how to do that.

    We don't disagree on assistance; we disagree on the method of assistance.

    I think the private sector within a free market economy is the best method. I think that is preferable over gov't because it involves hard work and, when necessary, charity. It involves the necessity to 'be thankful' for what has been given and proud of what is earned.

    Whereas. Gov't aid isn't charity. It is an entitlement. As such, any morality is divorced from that aid. That makes all the difference.

    My biggest beef with social welfare is that it is destroying all concepts of family and community for the poor. So, in addition to BEING poor, the poor are also disconnected from a community that can help them to rise above.

    I mentioned this before: the two most reliable ladders out of poverty are marriage and full time employment. So, of course, our social welfare programs consistently penalizes both. Why is that? Why, oh why must you renounce the ladders out of poverty in order to receive gov't aid?

    Fatherhood is NOT optional. 75% of children in poverty have no fathers at home. An additional 75% have no full time earners at home (some of those populations overlap). Just by correcting those two things we can bring the vast majority of children OUT of poverty. Gov't has no vested interest in such things because making a dad step up is a MORAL directive.

    The gov't is not a vehicle for morality. Nor does anybody really want it to be. None of us want or need the gov't to dictate the morality of our lives. However. Therein lies the problem. BECAUSE the gov't isn't a suitable vehicle for morality, it isn't a suitable vehicle for charity. In point of fact, the gov't isn't in the business of charity. It is in the business of entitlement. Those are very different things.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 6, '08
  13. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Let's stipulate that we want the same thing: to improve the lot of the poor; to assist them in pulling themselves up out of poverty.

    What we really disagree about is how to do that.

    We don't disagree on assistance; we disagree on the method of assistance.

    I think the private sector within a free market economy is the best method. I think that is preferable over gov't because it involves hard work and, when necessary, charity. It involves the necessity to 'be thankful' for what has been given and proud of what is earned.

    Whereas. Gov't aid isn't charity. It is an entitlement. As such, any morality is divorced from that aid. That makes all the difference.

    My biggest beef with social welfare is that it is destroying all concepts of family and community for the poor. So, in addition to BEING poor, the poor are also disconnected from a community that can help them to rise above.

    I mentioned this before: the two most reliable ladders out of poverty are marriage and full time employment. So, of course, our social welfare programs consistently penalizes both. Why is that? Why, oh why must you renounce the ladders out of poverty in order to receive gov't aid?

    Fatherhood is NOT optional. 75% of children in poverty have no fathers at home. An additional 75% have no full time earners at home (some of those populations overlap). Just by correcting those two things we can bring the vast majority of children OUT of poverty. Gov't has no vested interest in such things because making a dad step up is a MORAL directive.

    The gov't is not a vehicle for morality. Nor does anybody really want it to be. None of us want or need the gov't to dictate the morality of our lives. However. Therein lies the problem. BECAUSE the gov't isn't a suitable vehicle for morality, it isn't a suitable vehicle for charity. In point of fact, the gov't isn't in the business of charity. It is in the business of entitlement. Those are very different things.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    govt. forced them away from the community? i believe its the opposite - the community has forced them out of the way so as not tointerfere with thier perfect little lives. i know in our area anyways the status quo of people helping people is not a normal anymore.,. people turn a blind eye to those in need for a majority of folks around here. when i was growing up the whole neigborhood helped raise kids- today it isnt so. they call the police or nag you if your kids play off your yard and in thiers ( not even just when naughty - i mean if the football strays a few feet off- god forbid they have to touch thier grass) and they build fences to keep each other out and they ignore when others really look like they could use help ( complain loudly that a person is bad parent if kid acts up in public but do you think they would say to the kid- hey that is no way to treat your parent! and if the parent isnt there do youthink they call to let the parents know? no they ignore it and mumble and gossip bad things about the family ) when i was young the people didnt hesitate to tell us kids when we were not doing right. they didnt hesitate to swat our butts if we were doing dangerous things and our folks werent there. and the schools dont even help us - if we have troubl ewith our kids we have to threaten to take them to the state ( and for those who dont agree with it i do LOVE no child left behind - without it id have 2 kids "left behind" instead of 1 ) to get any help and then its in the form of send em off to a "naughty kid school" god forbid they should dicipline them - they wont even keep em on in school suspensions anymore- call the cops and send em home- yeah that teaches em - teaches em "hey i know how to get out of school" - and when the kid gets older? - i saw one parent in our community get in truble for thier teen kid skipping school, a fine and threatened to go to jail, the kid ended up in jail in the end but they esentially deemd that person a bad parent when i KNOW she was doing all she could and asked for help from social services and school - dont make the kids have any responsibility to thier own actions. teach that parent a lesson - yeah give me a break.

    the slum sections of cities as they are so called- do you think the community is helping them? no they are forced into corners making slum blocks in cities - running troubled families away to basically group them in one area. i felt it when i had my first 2 kids and hadto be on welfare to get through school - noone caring to help excveot the governemnt. living in a falling apart house of a pretty much slumlord- only place i could find that would rent to us at the time because we didnt have a lot of money - and the rent wasnt even much cheaper than anywhere else - the hwole 8 block radius ahd people like me - poor and single parents through no faults of our own ( my hubby had divorced me for another woman leaving me with 2 kids and nothing else, no real job skills cause i was mostly a stay at home mom )

    - i see it now with my disabled son in the school system. they were just gonna push him through like they did my disabled daughter (who now is 21 anbd cant hold a job) passing just to get her out - passed her even when i beegged them to hold her back - stating it would "hurt her self esteem" - where is her self esteem now? when she cant hold a job cause she didnt learn what she needed in school. thank god she did a report on no child left behind her jr yr. - kinda ironic to find out from my own kid caus ethe school sure never fessed up to what they were supposed to be doing - told me "oh its ok - we can opt her out of any testing cause she is disabled- what the hell good did that do? and some of the legalese of it so i learned and have prevented them from doing the same to my son now. he will not fail and the school will not just leave him not knowing what he needs to - i have the law behind me that says if they do leave him behid and they loose thier funding and i will use the threat of that until he graduates knowing what he needs to to pass those tests and hopefully enter into further education or if he still wants as of now to go into the military as his big brother is.

    in my opinion "the community" are the ones who have forced many into a corner needing help. if they HAD help elswhere they wouldnt need it from the government.

    just my opinion. been there done that. wanna fix it? in my opinion find a way to get the blinders off of the communities. and i am not saying there are not some very caring folks out there yet - there are - i am one- we adopt a family or 2 depending on how broke i am lol - and give em a xmas dinner and gfts - every yr i know of a few families who cant afford backpacks- i make some up with supplies- i cnat do many- but i am only one person- there arent to many who do that stuff these days, and the ones who do seem to be ones like me who dont have a lot but are willing to give anyways thankful for what help i recieved when i needed it way back when - i dont know a single "married family" with 2 jobs that gives as some of us do. and have had friends who ask me why i would do what i do when i dont have it - that they wouldnt do it cause it would "make them short" - on what? thier ski boat gas? thier cottage rentals? thier pool supplies? yes these are folsk i know - again at least in our areas. i even took one young single mom and "nurtured" her and helped her babysitting and such until she got on her feet - she sends me cards every few months to tell me how she is doing since she moved - and doing pretty good she is - even helping another young mom right now. i am sure there are some on here who do help others in need and dont stick thier heads in the sand when they see kids acting up in thier community. or when they see parents who need guidence learning to be parents because face it society has changed and we do have a lot of single parents out there - young and inexperienced that need guidence. mayeb it is because there is a lack oof fathers and mariage and values- we can blame that partly on governemnt - its way to easy these days- just go to court and get a divorce- no fault divorce- even when one does not want the divorce ( that is what i was told when i said no i dont want a divorce i want to work it out - my ex said there was no working it out he got his divorce "no fault" even though he was the one who had the affair ) but where are the neighbors and community - telling people to work it out - they arent they say "oh you dont have to put up with that - "just get a divorce you will be better off = " , i cant tell you how many times i heard that and how many times i heard that i "was better off without him" , but they arent there to help when the chips hit the fan.,

    and no i didnt feel "entitled " to that governemnt money - i felt and still do - extremely grateful it was there for me to get on my feet. yeah there were a few who took advantage and i will say they were pretty mcuh ostrisized from the group and majority of folks around the blocks felt just as i did and worked just as hard as i did.

    ok well - this again i repeat is just my opinion of what i see in the comunities around me. i can not speak for all - only ones i know of and where i know people who see it in thiers too. and i know i am not alone -

close