Bush Vetoes Farm Bill

Stephanie I agree with you. It would not be a good idea to rebuild there unless there is some form of absolute reinforcement which does not exist. The force of a storm like Katrina is something we can not control. I also do not agree with rebuilding in flood zones. It just does not make good sense.
Some might say what about earthquake zones but they do not occur that frequently. Flooding seems to occur more often. (People in China would disagree with me) The New Orleans displaced
residents should be relocated. Their was so much inefficiency and confusion many still do not know what to do. Some of course have succeeded in moving on. Hopefully all will one day. It was a terrible incident of the failure of government.

takara40 wrote:Hello SheikBen. It would be good to be able to do without both of them.

Let me clarify. I would like to see the government's "safety net" replaced by a private safety net (and without a private one, I do accept that the government cannot let people starve or freeze to death. I think a private one can and should, however, be encouraged).

Up in Chicago there is a place called the Pacific Garden Mission. If I give a sum of money to that mission, they give me a report which tells me exactly where that money is going. I know how many people have been fed, how many people have spent the night, etc.

If the Pacific Garden Mission is not using that money well (it uses it quite well, I believe, but still) then I can find another mission or homeless shelter to support (and, of course, those who are not Christians can find a secular group to support).

Now if the government is providing these programs poorly, the only group that has any oversight is Congress, and they are too embroiled in ideological warfare to actually care about accountability. When I worked up in Chicago, I came across people who needed help but could not get it, as well as people who vacationed in NYC and the Canadian Rockies on government aid. No kidding.

takara40 wrote:Stephanie I absolutely agree with you that a safety net is required. We are sometimes terrible in America at caring for our most vulnerable citizens. My father is an attorney and he does civil rights litigation. Though he is an African-American he did not agree that what occurred in New Orleans was racism. He believes that it was classism. The poor, the elderly and the disabled were left to fend for themselves to tragic result. He wants me to become a judge one day. I hope to have his experience in civil rights law first.

I agree that the disaster in New Orleans had it's worst affect on the poor, elderly, and disabled. The one thing I want to say though is that pre-Katrina New Orleans had an unfortunately high amount of the poor (I do not know about the elderly or the disabled) and the murder and crime rates were astronomical as well. Katrina did not cause New Orleans to be a city in desperate need of help, but rather it made an already classist city (there really were two of them--John Edwards would have been right about New Orleans, at least) in all the more desperate need of help.

My frustration with the news reporting of Katrina is that there seemed to be an underlying thought that New Orleans was doing "just fine" until the Bush administration failed to address a hurricane. No, New Orleans was not doing fine, and those levees were just another example of the negligence on all fronts (national, state, and local) that had long been pervasive there.

The force of a storm like Katrina is something we can not control...Their was so much inefficiency and confusion many still do not know what to do.

Takara, I don't know how you found us but I'm glad you did. Without an infusion of new ideas I'm afraid we'll become stale and redundant.

A lot of folks in Louisiana felt that the failure of government was a state and local failure. That may explain Governor Blanco's pasting at the hands of Bobby Jindal after one ineffective term.

I believe that government's responsibility is to govern and it is the peoples' responsibility collectively and individually to provide for the weakest and poorest among us.

If government is inept and corrupt why should we turn our health care over to it?

Sheik, in which America should Edwards seek refuge from a jealous Hillary Clinton?

I think John Edwards will hide from HRC in the Cabinet, if Obama gets elected.

If the Dems win, I have every confidence that there will no longer be two Americas. Our economy and wellbeing will suffer enough that there will just be one disastrous America:)

I believe that government's responsibility is to govern and it is the peoples' responsibility collectively and individually to provide for the weakest and poorest among us.

Jimmy, I agree with that statement, in general. However, I do think the government has a role to play in caring for those who cannot care for themselves.

Like Michael, I would like to see these efforts moved to the private sector. I'm not religious but there are many church groups of all denominations doing wonderful things to help the less fortunate from their back yards to Bangladesh.

I do think the government should protect and assist those who cannot fend for themselves. The government should see to it that people are warm and have full bellies, as a safety net. The government should not be in the business of creating and supporting an entire new class of people.....the welfare class.

The only problem with a governmental safety net Stehphanie is that once they're in for a pennie, they're in for 100 gazillion pounds!!!

Aaron,

Who do you think should be responsible for caring for the severely disabled? What if they have no surviving family? Should they be thrown to the wolves?

The Farm Bill (not the vetoed version) has been rescinded due to a technical error: the boobs sent Bush a version that omitted thirty-four pages. The fear is that when they over-ride the veto the question will arise what version are they over-riding? Apparently, they will have to return to square one (or some fractional version greater than one). In a perfect world the public will learn exactly what this bill does to the public, learn to hate it, and scream bloody murder when the bought-and-paid-for Congress passes it yet again.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/farm-bill-mistake-creates-big-mess/story.aspx?guid=%7B5BC15A4C-6546-4BA1-B08E-B2BD24D95F07%7D&dist=msr_36

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Who do you think should be responsible for caring for the severely disabled? What if they have no surviving family? Should they be thrown to the wolves?

What happened to them before government intervention?

In the case of children, many grew up in orphanages which were run by individuals that truly wanted to help children and loved what they are doing. While the children didn’t have a family they were taken care of and loved.

Now they go into foster care, which is overran by individuals that hoard children for the money and give them as little care and less love as is humanly possible.

Which is the better system Stephanie?

When Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr.'s mother was killed in the flu pandemic of 1917, his father asked Cornelius's aunt to take him in. She did. The Sale family wasn't about to palm him off on the government.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Who do you think should be responsible for caring for the severely disabled? What if they have no surviving family? Should they be thrown to the wolves?

What happened to them before government intervention?

In the case of children, many grew up in orphanages which were run by individuals that truly wanted to help children and loved what they are doing. While the children didn’t have a family they were taken care of and loved.

Now they go into foster care, which is overran by individuals that hoard children for the money and give them as little care and less love as is humanly possible.

Which is the better system Stephanie?

Aaron,

You already know I generally find orphanages preferable to the nightmare the foster care system is. I'm not necessarily speaking of children.

What happens to an older profoundly disabled person? Do you wish to institutionalize them all for life? If so, who pays for that?

ohio county wrote:When Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr.'s mother was killed in the flu pandemic of 1917, his father asked Cornelius's aunt to take him in. She did. The Sale family wasn't about to palm him off on the government.

Haven't you ever known anyone who simply doesn't have any family? Mr. Sale had family to turn to who was willing to help. What should become of those who don't?

Yes. And within my extended family I know aging relatives who fear for the well-being of younger disabled survivors.

http://www.missionfinder.org/orphanages.htm#special

I don't have a good answer to your question. I'd rather have a kid in a Christian orphanage than a foster program.

I had the privilege of working at the Colin-Anderson Center before it closed and the inhabitants were sent to group homes. Some of the kids there were mildly retarded and more than a few had Downs Syndrome. Many of them were put there to shield their families from embarassment. My job was to write to them begging them to come visit. While I was only there a few months, I never met the parent of an inhabitant. Was that better?

I can say that Big Boys Ward was not. The boys wandered around in a large concrete block room with a concrete floor with drains every few feet. Many wore protective headgear. Some wore nothing. The noise was deafening and the smell of urine was overpowering. A pictorial repesentation of bedlam.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Who do you think should be responsible for caring for the severely disabled? What if they have no surviving family? Should they be thrown to the wolves?

What happened to them before government intervention?

In the case of children, many grew up in orphanages which were run by individuals that truly wanted to help children and loved what they are doing. While the children didn’t have a family they were taken care of and loved.

Now they go into foster care, which is overran by individuals that hoard children for the money and give them as little care and less love as is humanly possible.

Which is the better system Stephanie?

Aaron,

You already know I generally find orphanages preferable to the nightmare the foster care system is. I'm not necessarily speaking of children.

What happens to an older profoundly disabled person? Do you wish to institutionalize them all for life? If so, who pays for that?

Stephanie,

I had a brother 2 years older then me that was mentally retarded and physically handicapped. When he was born (3 months pre-mature in 1963) the doctors told my parents he wouldn't live to be a month old. He did. The doctors then said he wouldn't live to be 6 months old and that my parents would be better off placing him in an institution.

My parents went to St. Mary's, WV and toured the institution. My father said in no uncertain terms that if Lloyd lived for 6 months, it would be at home with his parents and he would be loved and refused to have him institutionalized. When they took him back for his 6 month check up they were told he would live to be a year.

Then it was two, then 3, then 5 and even if he did live to be 5, he would never develop the ability to walk or talk, much less ever care for himself. He started walking just past his 3rd birthday, about the same time I did.

He didn't talk, at least where he could be understood until he was almost 5, at least according to the doctors. They claimed his mumblings were further proof that he would never have full brain function. My mother would laugh at them because she learned Lloyd's language from me and my brother (one year older them me, one younger then Lloyd) who would 'interpret' for her until she finally understood what each mumbling meant. I do remember vroomm meant car.

Lloyd went to first grade when he was supposed to but in the early 70's, they didn't know what to do with mentally retarded kids. During his 3rd year of school a wonderful special ed teacher got him transferred to Green Acres in LeSage, WV and Lloyd flourished there until he could no longer attend, upon his 19th birthday. During that time he got up to an 8th grade reading level and a 5th grade math level.

Later in life went to some of the group homes on a daily basis to do some work. I saw some of the inner workings of how some of those organizations worked. There was one terrific home in Huntington that he was associated with for the last 3 years of his life. Before that, there were two others that were horrible. The workers they had were minimum wage drop outs that didn’t care for the adults they were supervising, they treated them like crap and did some horrible things. Both by the way are now out of business.

Would it surprise you that the one that was terrific was a privately funded group home sponsored by the estate of a doctor in Huntington who had a mentally retarded son while the two that were horrible were both government ran and funded homes?

Lloyd died on April 19th, 1995 (Oklahoma City means very little to me) after living a very full, very productive life. Everyone he met, he touched in a special way, including all 4 of my children who will not tolerate anyone making fun of the kids like Lloyd to this day, even though they were 3, 4, 6 and 7 when he passed.

All in all, I trust the private sector, the churches and private organizations that fund these types of places more then I do the government.

All in all, I trust the private sector, the churches and private organizations that fund these types of places more then I do the government.

Aaron,

Your brother was very fortunate to have the parents he did. Sadly, not all disabled children are so lucky.

I prefer private, charitable organizations to government funded facilities as well. Group homes are much better living environments than big government run warehouses. I'm certainly not advocating for a return to the days when people were locked up and received no services or suffered abuse at the hands of staff members with no training, no hearts, and no scruples.

There are people today living independently who a couple of generations ago very well may have ended up in a place like Jimmy describes. What happens to these people if there is no charitable organization to care for them? Where do they go?

I think either you are misinterpreting what I mean by a "safety net", or you simply don't believe government will ever be capable of providing one. Either way, I favor public funding for the care of people who cannot care for themselves, when they have no place else to go.

I don't believe the government was ever, is not now nor will ever be capable of providing the safety net you speak of. They very well may start out with good intentions, but we all know where that road leads.

I would rather the tax money be returned to organizations that provide those services and to private citizens who contribute to them.

I believe that if the government would get out of the business and do nothing other then, at the very most, oversite.

With funding comes control and imo, that's not good. I believe that if the government got out and relinquished control, private charties would most certainly step up to the plate. As it is, how many private organizations refuse to step up simply because they don't want to get involved with the government?

Aaron and I were talking about the same place. I still have dreams about the crib ward.

I know my dad through up at the site of the institution and changed doctors, who said if my parents wouldn't voluntary commit my brother, he would do it.

In 1963 you didn't automatically go to jail for hitting a doctor like you would today.

I worked there in '76 or '77. They still had Big Boys Ward and the Crib Ward but they'd set up a series of experimental cottages. One program was called Every Child Has Opportunities and the other was Home Life. Both were to train kids for life outside the institution which they knew had a limited life-span.

They released a bunch of long-time residents about that time and started busing some of the higher level kids to public schools and the technical center.

So is/was this a state or private ran institution?

It was a state institution. For many years it was called the St. Marys Training School. In the enlightened 70's it became the Colin-Anderson Center. It's a regional jail now.

Good late afternoon everyone. I was very pleased to see all the discussion that was generated by the subject matter at hand. This is some subject matter which may be of interest." Welfare systems are formalized versions of types of social support that societies have always maintained. In all societies since the beginning of civilization, able-bodied adults have worked to support themselves as well as to provide for young, elderly, and disabled family members and, often, nonfamily members.By the Middle Ages in Europe, societies began to establish formal economic arrangements for giving charity to those in need. Donations by churches and from local feudal lords and other wealthy individuals supported hospitals, orphanages, and almhouses (privately funded homes for the poor)." History of Welfare Section III.
A. The English Poor Laws "The English Poor Laws, a system set up by the government of England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, attempted to establish a clear public responsibility for care of the poor. Under these laws, government authorities divided the poor into two groups. The "deserving poor" were those deemed unable to work- primarily the disabled, blind, and elderly. The able-bodied unemployed were labeled the "undeserving poor". Those considered unable to work were generally eligible for cash or other forms of assistance in their homes, known as outdoor relief. Those who could work were provided with what amounted to public-service employment. Such government-funded work was known as indoor relief, because it was usually done inside large public facilities called workhouses.
The Poor Laws made local government the primary administrator of welfare. To keep welfare beneficiaries under the supervision of their providers, the law also discouraged the migration of the poor among administrative regions, or parishes. From their inception, the Poor Laws generated controversy. Opponents of the laws argued that if the poor received public assistance, some of them might avoid work, not work hard enough, or not save any of their earnings." (From Article Welfare/History of Welfare Part A . Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia )
"The American colonists essentially imported the framework of the British Poor Laws. By the early 19th century, states required that counties or municipalities provide for the poor and needy........
Welfare did not disappear, however. From the mid-1800's to the early 1900's the Congress of the United States sponsored various programs that expanded public provision for the poor." (From Article Welfare/History of Welfare Part C. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.)
People very often erroneously believe that benefits to the poor which can be goods or services is a modern-day liberal invention. But services for the poor have existed for centuries. As we took much of our legal philosophy from the Magna Carta so we took our philosophy of the care of the poor from The English Poor Laws. That is not to say that personal responsibility should not be encouraged, it should be.

That's all well and good Takara but there is still no mention of it in the United States Constitution. If there is a place for 'poor laws' it would be at the state level.

The problem is, we as a state are already have way too much 'indoor relief' on the payroll.