A Father/Daughter talk

Nice but not everyone has access to such things. Not everyone lives around friendly neighbors or will be accepted by churches. Not everyone has the means to just up and move to another state more friendly to their needs.

So that should require me to support them? If a church won't accept them, their neighbors don't like them I don't need to support them either. More friendly to their needs? I grew up poor, but we managed to take care of needs, it was the wants that were not supported.
Bottom line, I'm tired of standing in line at the grocery store behind the welfare mom threatening her four kids with being dropped off at their daddy's house, complaining that they should make it easier for her to get her money as she swipes her welfare debit card throught he machine.
 
Dr. Hawking has proven what even terminally ill profoundly disabled people are capable of. Certainly we need to help. We need to stop enabling as well.

Dr. Hawking is an outlier... as his official website states when talking about his worsening condition (before which, he even used to be on the Oxford rowing team! (not first string quality though)) he makes this statement about catching pneumonia in 1985: "After this, I had to have 24 hour nursing care. This was made possible by grants from several foundations."

What it boils down to is this: would he have received those grants if he hadn't already made a name and on the road to getting his PhD? What if his conditions had come out earlier? He is STILL doing brilliant work without being able to put pencil to paper.
 
So that should require me to support them? If a church won't accept them, their neighbors don't like them I don't need to support them either. More friendly to their needs? I grew up poor, but we managed to take care of needs, it was the wants that were not supported.
Bottom line, I'm tired of standing in line at the grocery store behind the welfare mom threatening her four kids with being dropped off at their daddy's house, complaining that they should make it easier for her to get her money as she swipes her welfare debit card throught he machine.
Never said you should be required to do anything of the sort but let's not pretend that your little anecdote is a genuine representation of poor people across the country. Your bottom line doesn't apply to the population at large.
 
then help them. You, yourself, with your own time, effort and money. No problem.
I'm not arguing that but you need to recognize that a lot of people don't have those options you mentioned.
 
Actually, I don't recognize that. I see people rejecting options open to them because of some commitment required from them.
 
Bottom line, I'm tired of standing in line at the grocery store behind the welfare mom threatening her four kids with being dropped off at their daddy's house, complaining that they should make it easier for her to get her money as she swipes her welfare debit card throught he machine.

And yet there are some that don't support birth control or sex education.

Just be glad she isn't an 80 year old lady paying with a check. THAT is excruciating. FIRST she has to get her purse out and find her glasses, NO not her driving glasses, digging deeper, THERE, her reading glasses. Oh, and I just found my checkbook, and there are coupons, can you go back and ring those in? What do you mean expired? What's today's date? Are you sure about that total, that seems a bit high [studying receipt]

I guess sometimes we have to be patient with other people.
 
And now, for a little diversion: The ultimate desperate situation, courtesy of "The Last Starfighter"

Lord Kril: Damage report!
Kodan Officer: Guidance system out. Auxiliary steering out.
Lord Kril: Divert! Divert!
Kodan Officer: She won't answer the helm! We're locked into the moon's gravitational pull. What do we do?
[sound of Lord Kril's eyepiece swinging over left eye]
Lord Kril: We die.
 
Actually, I don't recognize that. I see people rejecting options open to them because of some commitment required from them.
You don't recognize that there are cases in which people have been screwed over by life through absolutely no fault of their own and have no non-governmental resources for help?

Recognize it or not, it's a reality. What you mentioned has jack squat to do with what I mentioned.
 
The citizens chose to live there knowing the dangers of living in an area prone to natural disaster.

While I partly agree with your overall reasoning, tell me this: what area isn't subject to major natural disasters? (And don't forget about the off-chance of a meteor impact...)
 
Remove all the fraud and abuse and there’s plenty of money in the system to help those that truly need and deserve help.
 
Recognize it or not, it's a reality.
So what? It is not the governments responsibility to take care of individuals. When government tries to take care of each individual, there is no end to what it can do for the sake of the people, for the children (sound familiar?) Why, government might even take away our guns to protect us from ourselves.
NO, get government OUT of our lives, and if we cannot manage our own lives, even with the help of other individuals or groups, then I guess the end quote I posted above applies: "We die." That's life.
 
For me, it's akin to what Bruxley and Perldog said. It's the enabling and coercion that gets my goat.

I have no problem helping those kids who are having a tough go of it for a time. Not forever, they have to step up to the plate.

Yes Redworm, there are people who have been screwed over through no fault of their own. I don't mind helping them get out of the abyss as long as THEY TRY also.

Heck, 45 years ago that was me, and people helped me. I tried though. I tried real hard because I don't have any special skills, nor am I a genius, etc. But I tried.

It was my limited experience that that is all people really wanted of me. (I'd be the biggest hypocrite in world history if I didn't want to help someone who has a tough go of it.)

Poor kids, who live in the abyss, need help IMHO. But they need to try.

Audrey, in the original post, wasn't trying.;)
 
So what? It is not the governments responsibility to take care of individuals. When government tries to take care of each individual, there is no end to what it can do for the sake of the people, for the children (sound familiar?) Why, government might even take away our guns to protect us from ourselves.
NO, get government OUT of our lives, and if we cannot manage our own lives, even with the help of other individuals or groups, then I guess the end quote I posted above applies: "We die." That's life.
The point is that if you're going to argue a point it would behoove you to get the facts straight. I tend to agree with you - to a certain extent - but if you go spouting off silly ideas like "everyone can get help without the government" when it's blatantly untrue then you do more damage to the argument than aid it.


And conservatives need to get over their irrational dislike of the phrase "for the children". :rolleyes: Helping children is a damn good reason to do something as long as it genuinely does help them.
 
Yes Redworm, there are people who have been screwed over through no fault of their own. I don't mind helping them get out of the abyss as long as THEY TRY also.

Heck, 45 years ago that was me, and people helped me. I tried though. I tried real hard because I don't have any special skills, nor am I a genius, etc. But I tried.

It was my limited experience that that is all people really wanted of me. (I'd be the biggest hypocrite in world history if I didn't want to help someone who has a tough go of it.)

Poor kids, who live in the abyss, need help IMHO. But they need to try.
Absolutely they need to try. But people need to recognize that having the motivation to try is not purely a genetic thing. If a child has been raised for eight years by parents that don't give a damn about him, that haven't taught him a damn thing and the only example they ever showed was laziness and crime then that kid is going to need a lot more help than simply being given an opportunity.

Those critical years have a strong impact on the character of a person and you have to be willing to accept that sometimes when kids don't try as hard as they could it's not necessarily their fault. They're not old enough to understand the overall issues. Now I don't care how many of these guys come in saying "well mah eight year old understands all on his own!." No, he doesn't. He understands because that's how he's been raised, not because he's moved into the formal operational stage twice as fast as any other child on the planet.

I fully agree that kids need to try but people need to realize that many may need help in learning that trying is important.
 
Helping children is a damn good reason to do something as long as it genuinely does help them.
That's the point. Legislation often does not genuinely help, nor does it have to be shown how it will, or does, help. And the phrase is often used to support violating the constitution and/or common sense.
 
Redworm, I thought I was too pessimistic, whoa.

It's true that bad things happen to good people sometimes, but I don't think it's the norm. Generally speaking, the harder you work, the farther you get.

Throw in the Government card, with all the fees, regulations, licensing, insurance, continuing education, taxes, and so forth and bam, it gets harder for the hard working to keep afloat.

Generally speaking, the only people I see who can't make it are lazy, drug abusers, or just plain do not manage thier money well if at all.

The government rewards these types by giving them benefits which allow them to continue to sit on the couch, and become more dependant on others, worsening the problem(s).

If government was seriously down scaled and welfare done away with, people would live right through it. They would get up off that couch and go get a job flipping burgers at least.

The poor never miss any meals. The rich never have any extra. Things have a way of working out. The poor man would receive help from friends & family and things would get better over time across the board.

Yes, of course there would be a few that their circumstances would leave them in dire straights but no moreso than the few good people who have bad things happen to them. But generally speaking, things would get better as the norm. Take away the big governments drain on the middle class, and those people would have more to work with, would help the less fortunate more, people would get better help and more educated, and the people would prosper more across the board and life would be better for all. You are wrong.

Show me someone who can't make the rent and I'll show you someone who is irresponsible, hung over, drug addicted, or an enabled couch potato. Audrey fits here.
 
get the facts straight
Facts, what facts? I haven't seen any facts regarding this.

"everyone can get help without the government"
Who are you quoting here? I never said that. And if you inferred that from what I did say, let me clear it up now. Those sources I offered up are where the help should come from. Federal government should NOT be doing it. Period. Based on the Constitution. (I would also prefer that state and local governments not have these programs either, but at least from them it is legal.) If they do not get help, for whatever reason, then they do not get help.
 
That's the point. Legislation often does not genuinely help, nor does it have to be shown how it will, or does, help. And the phrase is often used to support violating the constitution and/or common sense.
That's debatable. Sometimes it does genuinely help, sometimes it doesn't. Anecdotes don't count and statistics are too flaky to say for sure whether government or private charity helps more.
acts, what facts? I haven't seen any facts regarding this.
That some people are without the resources for help. Not everyone has access to the things you mentioned previously.
Who are you quoting here? I never said that. And if you inferred that from what I did say, let me clear it up now. Those sources I offered up are where the help should come from. Federal government should NOT be doing it. Period. Based on the Constitution. (I would also prefer that state and local governments not have these programs either, but at least from them it is legal.) If they do not get help, for whatever reason, then they do not get help.
I tend to agree though I think a constitutional amendment for a lot of things is long overdue. But I'd be willing to bet there are legal scholars out there who can justify such programs with the constitution a hell of a lot better than either of us can argue against it. So maybe we don't know the COTUS as well as we think we do.

Your last sentence is disturbing but you do have every right to feel that way.
 
Absolutely they need to try. But people need to recognize that having the motivation to try is not purely a genetic thing. If a child has been raised for eight years by parents that don't give a damn about him, that haven't taught him a damn thing and the only example they ever showed was laziness and crime then that kid is going to need a lot more help than simply being given an opportunity.

Completely agree, but where does this become a government issue?

And IMHO, saying things like this...
"everyone can get help without the government" when it's blatantly untrue then you do more damage to the argument than aid it.
is just an excuse. I could always say that because of one single mom, one lazy dad, one stupid kid, etc. that it wont work because it does not help everyone. It will never help everyone, no one is trying to argue that it would work that way. If you can help a majority, and I think we would agree that the majority are not your extreme cases of people who don't
lives around friendly neighbors or will be accepted by churches.
, then helping that majority is what is important. Continuing a system or implementing new systems and programs that will be abused and reduce the need for personal responsibility, will not help even your extreme cases.

One of the things that irks me is when Republicans get painted by that extremely wide brush that basically says we are not compassionate because we do not want to pay higher taxes to help others. It is not that at all, its that it is not supposed to work that way and from seeing the effects of the programs currently in place, it does not work that way. I give to charity what I can, but at the end of the day, my family and livelihood come first, to think that I should have to pay for some crackwhore first is assend backwards IMO.
 
Completely agree, but where does this become a government issue?

And IMHO, saying things like this...
I didn't say it is a government issue. Certainly not a federal government issue, in my opinion, but on the other hand if the people of a state feel that the state government should be the one most in charge of the issue then its their right to run their state in that manner. Now if the vast majority of the American population happens to feel the same way then they should also have the right to run their nation in that manner. I would say that such a thing would require a more clear authorization for the federal government to do so but if enough people feel that government should handle welfare to authorize a constitutional amendment then the people should get just that.

is just an excuse. I could always say that because of one single mom, one lazy dad, one stupid kid, etc. that it wont work because it does not help everyone. It will never help everyone, no one is trying to argue that it would work that way. If you can help a majority, and I think we would agree that the majority are not your extreme cases of people who don't
It's not an excuse, it's the truth. Getting the argument wrong and not understanding the true scope of it when debating with others makes the idea seem less informed and it looks bad on everyone who happens to agree. Like it or not, public perception of a belief is equally as important as the rationality of that belief. If the most vocal people arguing for less government involvement of social services are filling their arguments with misinformation and inaccuracies then anyone listening will be far more easily swayed by the other side of the argument that knows how to debate rationally and with factual information.

Bottom line, assuming everyone has access to private sources of help is counterproductive and detrimental to the idea that private organizations should be the most common source of help.

And I wouldn't necessarily agree that the majority of people who need help have access to such things.
, then helping that majority is what is important. Continuing a system or implementing new systems and programs that will be abused and reduce the need for personal responsibility, will not help even your extreme cases.
I disagree on both counts. You can't just "help the majority" and expect people to be ok with leaving a few out to dry because even a small minority might mean thousands of people who have done nothing wrong.

And I also disagree with the assumption that somehow private charities and churches are less prone to abuse than government or that they do a better job of promoting personal responsibility.

One of the things that irks me is when Republicans get painted by that extremely wide brush that basically says we are not compassionate because we do not want to pay higher taxes to help others. It is not that at all, its that it is not supposed to work that way and from seeing the effects of the programs currently in place, it does not work that way. I give to charity what I can, but at the end of the day, my family and livelihood come first, to think that I should have to pay for some crackwhore first is assend backwards IMO.
No, the reason Republicans get painted by that wide brush is because you use phrases like "to think that I should have to pay for some crackwhore first is assend backwards" and implying that most of the people your tax dollars would be helping are "crackwhores".
 
Back
Top