Thought for today

I wonder Ziggy if you've ever stepped foot inside a welfare office? Or been in an inner city slum?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but I'm telling you, I've seen first hand the results of what government entitlement programs do and I know the effect they have on the people they're supposed to be helping.

You really don't have a clue.

Aaron wrote:I wonder Ziggy if you've ever stepped foot inside a welfare office? Or been in an inner city slum?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but I'm telling you, I've seen first hand the results of what government entitlement programs do and I know the effect they have on the people they're supposed to be helping.

You really don't have a clue.

I once saw an interview that I will never forget, ever. This lady had a child. She was single and had a couple of other kids. The father of this child was nowhere to be found. She was also on public assistance. As the interview progressed the lady was sitting there boo hooing about her situation, that she had these kids and was on welfare. the person doing the interview then asked the mother of all questions. He asked, "would you have had sex with the man, if welfare wasn't available." This is her answer, one, I will never forget. She said as plainly and quickly as possible, "NO"

What Ziggy and Sherman both want to forget is that people make choices. They make choices that are good and choices that aren't. Until people are held to account for choice they make that aren't so good, we'll have people that make bad choices as a habit, simply because they aren't held accountible. They don't have to clean up the mess they've made. Until we start requiring people clean up their messes so to speaking all we are doing is creating and ever increasing entitlement society.

Well Cato again you are over-simplifying.

What bad choice have those three kids made?

You say welfare recipients should work.

Well that is a sound good phrase but it glosses over the fact most welfare recipients are children.

So would you repeal child labor laws to make them work instead of going to school.?

You guys spout off these stereotypes about welfare cadillacs and "welfare mommies" to salve your own conscience and rationalize your lack of compassion.

I have been in "welfare offices" many times and it is not a way of life anyone would choose.

But irregardless of your conclusion that the "welfare mommy" should starve and freeze for her actions, what actions do the three kids have to atone for?

I once saw an interview that I will never forget, ever. This lady had a child. She was single and had a couple of other kids. The father of this child was nowhere to be found. She was also on public assistance. As the interview progressed the lady was sitting there boo hooing about her situation, that she had these kids and was on welfare. the person doing the interview then asked the mother of all questions. He asked, "would you have had sex with the man, if welfare wasn't available." This is her answer, one, I will never forget. She said as plainly and quickly as possible, "NO"

What Ziggy and Sherman both want to forget is that people make choices. They make choices that are good and choices that aren't. Until people are held to account for choice they make that aren't so good, we'll have people that make bad choices as a habit, simply because they aren't held accountible. They don't have to clean up the mess they've made. Until we start requiring people clean up their messes so to speaking all we are doing is creating and ever increasing entitlement society.

So Cato, many Americans were impoverished in the 19th century, too- many more so than today- as a percentage. That was in the days before government assistance as we know it today. What has changed- why are Americans overall less impoverished in the 21st century than in the 19th and early 20th century?

Your right Sodbuster, there a lot in the welfare office who do not choose that way of life.

At least not initially but once they are in, the massive government bureaucracy takes over and for most, there's no way out try as they might so they just give up and learn how to work the system.

Until the entitlement mentality is ended and the government you champion stops oppressing the recipients, it will go on and on.

As for the poor kiddies, no you don’t make them work. You take them from the deadbeats who refuse to work and put them in an environment where they’re more then a welfare raise?

Education Ziggy.

Now address the massive oppression the government imposes on those it is supposed to be helping or move on.

Yes, education is one of the things that government is into more than it was 100 or 150 years ago. But many of you contend that the state and local government operated education systems are a mess. And Cato goes so far as to suggest that government should not be in the education business at all. But if education is the reason why Americans today are better off economically than in the 19th century, then government must be doing something right.

Why does a welfare mother lose her medical card, welfare check, receive a reduction in her food stamps, lose partial rent support and get very little child care support, all of which total losses that far exceed here income if she takes a job at Wal Mart making $7.50 an hour?

Where is the incentative for her to work?

You are exactly right about that Aaron.

But can you imagine the howling from the right if we instituted a sliding scale to supplement their incomes and continue their insurance a few months to get them back on their feet?

No Sodbuster I can't imagine the howling because I don’t believe it would exist anywhere other then in your imagination. The simple fact is, the last meaning welfare reform was written by Republicans in 1996. Before that, the rules and regulations governing welfare were put in place in 1935.

I think if you find a good bill that aids in moving people from welfare to work, the only thing that would stand in the way of bi partisan support would be democrats.

I don't believe liberals would go along with any program that requires personal responsibility.

Google the Welfare act of 1996 and the first page your see is links to liberal sites that decry the failure of that act and how it is working against lifting people out of poverty.

That confuses me somewhat. I thought welfare was supposed to be a safety net for individuals and families who were down, not as a means of lifting them out of poverty and when did it become the responsibility of government to lift people out of poverty.

I’ve read my copy of the constitution and I can’t find the article or amendment that places that responsibility in the hands of our government.

ziggy wrote:

So Cato, many Americans were impoverished in the 19th century, too- many more so than today- as a percentage. That was in the days before government assistance as we know it today. What has changed- why are Americans overall less impoverished in the 21st century than in the 19th and early 20th century?

Because as time went along more wealth was created. as more welath was created more oppertunity was available and the cycle repeated itself.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

So Cato, many Americans were impoverished in the 19th century, too- many more so than today- as a percentage. That was in the days before government assistance as we know it today. What has changed- why are Americans overall less impoverished in the 21st century than in the 19th and early 20th century?

Because as time went along more wealth was created. as more welath was created more oppertunity was available and the cycle repeated itself.

And almost all of that wealth has been created since the government "welfare" programs of the 1930s and later were enacted. So that would indicate that "entitlement" programs are not holding back the creation of more wealth. It is reasonable to assert that where people are better fed, better housed, better clothed, have better health care and are better educated than abject 19th century poverty allowed, that all the people thereof are part of an overall wealthier and healthier society.

Aaron wrote:Why does a welfare mother lose her medical card, welfare check, receive a reduction in her food stamps, lose partial rent support and get very little child care support, all of which total losses that far exceed here income if she takes a job at Wal Mart making $7.50 an hour?

Where is the incentative for her to work?

Ziggy? And while your at it perhaps you can tell us why we as Americans have spent trillions on public housing but 90+% of all public housing is in some form of despair or another, many of which would fail a standard home inspection.

And also, why as the percentage of single mohters increased 33% since the 1970's or why, overall, the rate of single parents is 28% but stands at 56% in the Africian American community.

Any way you try to cut it, Aaron, Americans as a whole are better off than they were 150, or 100, or 75 years ago.

Thanks in large part to FDR and LBJ.

Yeah, we have that $60,000,000,000,000.00 in UNFUNDED liabilities to thank LBJ and FDR for Sodbuster. Too bad you won't live to see it bankrupt your great grandkids. I'm sure they'll thank you though, won't they!!!

Aaron wrote:

Aaron wrote:Why does a welfare mother lose her medical card, welfare check, receive a reduction in her food stamps, lose partial rent support and get very little child care support, all of which total losses that far exceed here income if she takes a job at Wal Mart making $7.50 an hour?

Where is the incentative for her to work?

Ziggy? And while your at it perhaps you can tell us why we as Americans have spent trillions on public housing but 90+% of all public housing is in some form of despair or another, many of which would fail a standard home inspection.

And also, why as the percentage of single mohters increased 33% since the 1970's or why, overall, the rate of single parents is 28% but stands at 56% in the Africian American community.

I guess you'd rather remain silent and have others think you don't have a freaking clue as to what you're talking about then to post and prove it, huh Ziggy!!!

I refer my honorable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

ziggy wrote:Any way you try to cut it, Aaron, Americans as a whole are better off than they were 150, or 100, or 75 years ago.

Only because of the advancement of technology, Zig. The average unskilled laborer made 2.2 times as much in real wages in 1950 than he did in 2000. We are working harder and owing more. Compare the list of teachers' concerns from the 1950s with those of the 2000s (swearing/gum chewing vs assault/drugs).

We spend more money per pupil than any nation in western Europe and our test scores are abysmal. Washington DC is throwing sick amounts of dollars and not fixing their problem, while the KIPP schools are doing very well. The difference? Public schools want more money, while the KIPP schools demand accountability. Funny how the Dems think the answer is more money.

As to Aaron's welfare mom suggestion, if she is making 7.50 an hour and she is single, she will likely continue to receive government health care and will likely continue to qualify for food stamps as well. She may lose her rental subsidy. What she will be discouraged from doing is seeking the manager position as that WILL make her lose all of her goodies.

She keeps health care for her kids SB but she immediately loses hers. In addition to the reduction in rent subsidy she will lose, she'll also likely lose some utility assistance and her food stamps will be reduced.

Years ago, I read a study that showed a welfare mom loses $1.5 dollars in public assistance for every dollar of salary she earns.

That's Ziggy's government assistance.

ziggy wrote:I refer my honorable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Yes, Americans are better off then they were 100 years ago but it's not because of your precious government.

Sheik hit the nail on the head in pointing out that it's technology, education and medical advancements.

And contrary to what you think, the private sector are responsible for those gains in spite of your government, not because of it.

You don't address the question because your scared your ignorance of the subject will show.

Sorry Zig, it already is.

Aaron,

I disagree with your assertion that government has played no role in reducing poverty in this country, just as I disagree with Ziggy's assertion that entitlement programs have lessened it.

While entitlement programs may have worked to ease the stress and burden of poverty, they haven't elevated the poor out of poverty. Quite to the contrary, many of these entitlement programs encourage irresponsible behavior, provide no incentives for citizens to break free of these entitlements instead placing obstacles to self-sufficiency, the result of which has been families trapped in poverty for generations. Children growing up in the same housing projects their grandparents were raised in. These programs work to destroy families, relagate fathers to the role of sperm donors and whenever possible paychecks.

What the government has done to help elevate people out of poverty has not come by way of any entitlement program nor has it come by way of job creation. What the government has done is to create labor laws and regulations. Coal miners are no longer paid with script which can only be used in the Company Store. Factory workers are no longer toiling 16 hours a day 6 days a week to pay the room & board expenses of the dormatories and mill houses they rent from their employers. The government has instituted and enforced safety standards and procedures so fewer people are severly disabled on the job. When employees are injured or killed on the job because of the negligence of an employer, the government now holds them accountable. People are no longer less valuable than mules.

Anyway, I've read the back and forth of this as long as I could take while remaining silent. Neither of you are correct. Welfare isn't elevating anybody out of poverty and over the past century or so the government has taken steps that has resulted in reducing poverty in this nation.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

So Cato, many Americans were impoverished in the 19th century, too- many more so than today- as a percentage. That was in the days before government assistance as we know it today. What has changed- why are Americans overall less impoverished in the 21st century than in the 19th and early 20th century?

Because as time went along more wealth was created. as more welath was created more oppertunity was available and the cycle repeated itself.

And almost all of that wealth has been created since the government "welfare" programs of the 1930s and later were enacted. So that would indicate that "entitlement" programs are not holding back the creation of more wealth. It is reasonable to assert that where people are better fed, better housed, better clothed, have better health care and are better educated than abject 19th century poverty allowed, that all the people thereof are part of an overall wealthier and healthier society.

Answer me this Ziggy, is wealth created when you take wealth from one group and give it to another, which is entitlement? Or, is wealth created when people can freely trade and create goods and services others may need or desire? then tell me which is the better system.

But the thing is Stephanie; the government didn't create these programs on their own free will. Every program you mentioned was not the result of government intervention but was fought for by unions; in many cases with the blood of the men doing the fighting and that is why we have 40 hour work weeks, safe work places and fair wage labor laws.

Contrary to what you say, the government lifted no one out of poverty. That was done by unions and working men and women.

Even though I have no use for unions today, I do give them credit for what they accomplished back in the day.

Now if they would just learn their time has passed and wither away, we'd all be better off.

"...... is wealth created when you take wealth from one group and give it to another, which is entitlement? Or, is wealth created when people can freely trade and create goods and services others may need or desire? then tell me which is the better system."

Well again you over-simplify, Cato.

Of course wealth is not directly created by helping the needy (most of whom are children and mothers).

Nor is wealth created by the gvt. providing police and fire services.

Or National Defense via our military.

Or education services.

Gvt. services in general are not provided for the purpose of creating wealth.

But your two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

The provision of gvt. services does not preclude free trade and the creation of goods and services.

It is a non-sequitur that government services and wealth creation cannot be done simultaneously.

In fact, it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to create wealth if we did not have gvt. services.

Likewise with that tired old phrase "Government should be run like a business."

Government is not a business and should not be run like one.

The goal of business is to turn a profit.

The role of gvt. is to provide a public service.