Simple view of liberal vs conservative

[CamB]

Originally posted by Moses
How is that? The WPA work is always completely voluntary. No need to work if you don't take the money!

Nothing "voluntary" when the choice is no food!

Reading your post I guess it just reinforces stuff that's been through this thread (and I'm not sure I know who's right or wrong).

Your view is that the lack of, and wrong, incentives in welfare lead to the problem. Mine is probably that poverty itself and lack of education is the problem. Maybe we both believe much the same thing (because I certainly agree with your point - I just see it as a necessary evil).

I think where we actually differ is the opinion on the adequacy of welfare. I still don't think it is adequate enough to be a genuine disincentive to getting a job for all but the most hard-core (hence intergenerational and lifelong welfare are unfortunate, unintended, side effects). Plus I agree with Rodeo that there are negative consequences to the hypothetical solo-mum's children of changing the way welfare works.

[dd74]

Proponents of programs such as WAP aren't advocating taking away food or "forcing" people into a program. If you want to take it to the extent of communism, then we're all suffering under that ideology as we are forced to go to work to survive.

Under WAP, education is given; one has to work for it. Health benefits are given, you just have to work for it. Work gains benefits, which is no different a lifestyle than the majority of RESPONSIBLE contributors to society engage in.

[Rodeo]

So if welfare recipients just went to work like everyone else, poverty and dependence wouldn't be a problem. And we'll give them INCENTIVE to go to work by paying them money! And benefits too!

None of us are social scientists, but even I see a few, ... um, flaws in that system.

The most obvious is that it's the system we have now. Want money? Get a job. Adding a new employer named WPA doesn't really change the equation much does it?

[Nathans_Dad]

Why does the equation need to be changed? You would prefer an equation that gives you money for doing nothing? What country are you founding again?? I wanna join up.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Why does the equation need to be changed?

I think we agree that we live in a country where if you want a job and are capable of working, you can escape poverty and dependence. You can get a job and become self-sufficient.

Yet despite this we have a problem of hard core poverty and dependence. It just seems to me that the solution is not "let's offer them a job so they can escape poverty and dependence." They already have that option, but for some reason it is not enough.

I would think the reasons for this are as varied as the people on welfare. Child care, emotional issues, lack of motivation, physical issues, drug and alcohol dependence, ignorance of the opportunities available, family issues, etc. etc.

So my point is that if we want to get to a solution, offering welfare recipients an opportunity to work for money and benefits probably is a bit simplistic.

[Tervuren]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Already has Tabs...just take a look at Africa.

Africa's problem with certain diseases come more from sexual imorality of a large portion of the population. Many are the victems of rape, are given the disease, and then pass it on if they are raped again, or marry. The core of the issue is what happens when you throw out God - people die. America if itkeeps up its trends, is going to have severe trouble, especialy from natural disasters and disease.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Rodeo

So my point is that if we want to get to a solution, offering welfare recipients an opportunity to work for money and benefits probably is a bit simplistic.

Look at the flipside, they would be offerred the opportunity to be homeless and hungry should they choose not to work.

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a cogent argument for government assistance to able bodied persons who refuse to work.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Moses
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a cogent argument for government assistance to able bodied persons who refuse to work.

And no one is suggesting that, certainly not me. Read my posts again, I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I think I'm capable of expressing simple ideas.

On the other hand, maybe you really believe that "make 'em get a job" is the solution that everyone has inexplicably overlooked all these years.

[Howard Agency]

Rodeo, SoCal, I've never heard the problem so well defined.
The fix may be a bit harder to find, but I'm reminded of the movie 'Dave' where Kevin Kline brings in his CPA to balance the budget in one night. It can be done, and the executive branch has to do it.

Our chief executives (county, state, federal) have to ramrod the program. We can't elect liberals or conservatives to fill these posts, but instead find one term pragmatists that will make it happen.

If either of you guys want to run.....