Yeah, I really think success traits are genetic, not learned. I think of a friend who was the leader from elementary school, high school quarterback, enlisted, made flight school and was up for admiral. As soon as you met him you knew. Same for a boss I had a few years ago who is now VP of Lockheed where I work. As soon as you spent a few hours with him, you knew he was going places. Now perhaps the years of success reinforce these traits but I think the traits are innate to start with.

It has nothing to do with "lack of education" about the consequences...
It has everything to do with the expectation of being bailed out by a government that will give them someone else's money if they squander their own....just to buy their vote for a lifetime.

Mostly all of these are under his control. 10% is easy. 20% to 30% are realistic.

Agreed. 10% is just a matter of not spending the extra 50 cents for cheese on your burger. Is that 50 cents the difference between conservatives and liberals? And it tends to follow. Sometimes ya buy a 914 rather than a 911 :)

I don't believe it's genetic or environmental. My daughter (who drives a Mercedes) laughed when I bought a Hyundai SUV.
"Dad, you could afford the Cayenne. Why did you buy this POS?"
"Sweety, the Hyundai came with a better CD; about $40,000 worth."

Sounds better than Bose to me
SmileWavy

I'll keep reading and I expect to find some good discussion but had to stop here just to say that Steve is terrifically lucid here. It's not an insult when I say many will not understand Steve's point. They will not see from this perspective. But Steve is right. I remember walking past a house recently that was no more than a shoebox. Perhaps 700 SF. In the living room was perhaps a 60" flat screen TV. Stunning picture.

Now, some folks would scoff and cast aspersions about this person's lifestyle. I couldn't help thinking that a shoebox house and superb TV probably makes a lot of sense for some folks.

Life is not a contest.

And another thing that's hard to grok: There is the joke about the aliens that come down to talk to us, and want to hear our views about Free Will. They'd heard of this, and wonder what the heck we might mean by that term. They say they understand genes and heredity. And they understand how experience combines with heredity to lead to a particular behavior or decision. No problem there. But then what, aside from heredity and environment, could impact or program and human's behavior. Or any other creature for that matter.

Sorry I missed all the fun after my post...lots of good discussion going on...

Cam: I didn't say people were genetically inferior, that would be Steve. Look to him to support his argument, not me.

Steve: You asked for the prototypical conservative response...I'm not sure I can give that because I don't think I'm the prototypical conservative. But, I will give you MY response:

I don't think that people who don't succeed in America are genetically inferior to those that do. That is just another in the long line of excuses that make up the "victim generation". I can't get ahead because I'm poor, I can't get ahead because I'm black, I can't get ahead because I'm gay, I can't get ahead because the gubmint won't give me my welfare, I can't get ahead because my daddy left me when I was young, I can't get ahead because I'm short, or tall, or fat, or thin, or whatever. It's all a bunch of crap.

Are certain people born with advantages? Absolutely. No doubt. Is it harder for people who come from tough situations to make it? Yes. Without a doubt. Is that an EXCUSE for never doing anything with your life? HELL NO.

Case in point. I met a congressman from Illinois (I believe) about 3 years ago in D.C. He was speaking at the church my father attends. After his speech, I was able to talk with him (he is a black Democrat, by the way). The man was born in rural Alabama to a share-cropper. He had to WALK 5 miles to school every day (each way) and sit in an unairconditioned schoolhouse in the Alabama heat. His family did not have a dime to their name. Guess where he is now? He is a college graduate, a law school graduate and a US Congressman. So please get off the idea that some people are born to fail and it's up to the rest of us to support these poor, downtrodden, GENETICALLY INFERIOR (your words, not mine)members of our society.

In a country where someone can come up with a PET ROCK and make millions, I think there is plenty of opportunity for hard working people, even if they don't meet your definition of the "successful" person. Ever watch the show American Chopper? How about Monster Garage? I don't think Paul Sr. would fare very well in a classroom or in some upper management position. But the guy is a multi-millionaire from making custom motorcycles with his hands.

I think that social security is a good thing. I think that short-term programs to help those that have lost their jobs is a good thing. I think that programs to try and give the less fortunate a help up is a good thing. I think institutionizing poverty in the form of welfare and making a large percentage of our population dependent on the gubmint for their daily bread is a BAD THING. I believe in a hand UP, not a hand OUT.

BTW, it's very refreshing to see a debate thread that hasn't yet mentioned the I**q word...

Rick,
I need to carify. I believe we are the sum of probabilities. We have physical, mental, personality, etc. traits that span the spectrum. On each trait we fall somewhere on the curve and in summation we do the best we can with what we have to start with. Some have attributes that make success rather easy. Corporations look for those traits in young hires and then funnel them into special management programs that quickly reward them financially. Some have traits that don’t work in corporate America but they blossom in their own environment. Your example of Paul is good. But as you also note some have disadvantages which require extra work to overcome.

“Are certain people born with advantages? Absolutely. No doubt. Is it harder for people who come from tough situations to make it? Yes. Without a doubt. Is that an EXCUSE for never doing anything with your life? HELL NO.”

I don’t think it is an excuse either. Everyone should do the best they can. I am saying that we should not be surprised that some cannot make it and I would attribute that to a innate trait, genetics. I know some are born with a number of innate traits on the far side of the curve that will preclude them from being successful, whether financially, emotionally, or in relationships. Some of these traits from both sides of the curves can be seen in direct parents and some seemingly come out of nowhere.

“I don't think that people who don't succeed in America are genetically inferior to those that do. That is just another in the long line of excuses that make up the "victim generation". I can't get ahead because I'm poor, I can't get ahead because I'm black, I can't get ahead because I'm gay, I can't get ahead because the gubmint won't give me my welfare, I can't get ahead because my daddy left me when I was young, I can't get ahead because I'm short, or tall, or fat, or thin, or whatever. It's all a bunch of crap.”

No one should use their current state to define their future. I agree that leads to the “poor me” attitude. But we should not simply look upon those in need as if they could have changed their state by hard work. And it is the view with which you look at that person that I think is important. Again “There but by the grace of God, go I” versus “Well, he didn’t plan very well, did he?” Sometimes, no amount of hand up will work.

OK, Steve. I don't disagree with anything you've said but I have a question about the old fart at Kragens. Where's the tragedy? In this country he won't starve or go without health care. Are you arguing for a nicer safety net?

And about your "genetic predisposition" that precludes some to a lack of social and financial success; If they are pre-programmed to be homeless, unemployed and unhappy, why does society struggle to fix peoples lives that can't be fixed?

Well Steve, this is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I patently reject the notion that some people are just destined to fail in life no matter how hard they work because they were "dealt a bad hand". Beethoven went DEAF in his childhood and still managed to compose some of the most beautiful music in our civilization. I have seen too many people pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it in life to agree with the notion that some folks are just "losers" and we should put them on the gubmint dole. I completely am in favor of charity and I think that the government should have a support system for those who fall on hard times. But I think that support system should be geared towards bringing that person back into the workforce and returning them to productive society. Welfare, on the other hand, pays the individual for sitting on their can, pays them for having multiple children which they cannot support and penalizes them for going out and working (ever hear the stories of how people can't work at McDonalds while on welfare because they then "make too much" even though it is still less than their welfare check?).

Liberals need to realize that welfare is perpetuating poverty and reliance on the government for daily essentials in this country. It is NOT the government's job to provide a lifetime of welfare checks to those who choose to not work, even if you think they are genetically inferior to you.

With all due respect to some really thoughtful posters on this subject, I think everyone is talking around the issue.

What separates us (the lib vs. conservative spectrum) is not so much how we feel about the guy or gal that made nothing of their life. I'm on the left side but I would never think to say, "oh, that poor fellow he came from a poor family and got involved with drugs and then went to jail for stealing, I need to help him."

I know that is the parody a lot of conservatives play in their heads when thinking about "us." But its just not true ... I think that guy is a jerk that had opportunities but blew them, because he was lazy, dishonest, or whatever. I don't pity him.

But here's what separates us ... What do we do about him? What do we do about his kids? How do we build a society where there are fewer people like him?

Pretend you live in a small town of 100 people, including a crack-addicted woman with 4 kids aged 3-10. There are no other resources available to her or her kids except the town and its people. You control the town. What do you do about her? What do you do about her kids?

I almost asked this same question Moses, but I am sure Steve doesn't want to take that road to its end so I didn't. BUT....since YOU brought it up :p

This kind of thinking leads to the conclusion that perhaps if those people are just destined to fail and will never provide any contribution to society......maybe we should just get rid of them. Restrict their rights to procreate and produce more genetically inferior kids who will never amount to anything either. Hrm...or maybe send those genetically inferior people to the gas chambers so that they will no longer weigh down the rest of us...where have I heard that before?? Can't quite place it...

Moses, the Kragens fart cannot afford his own retirement. Certainly not the medical part. Or at least, if he's one of those folks who don't get a (medical insurance) seat when the music stops playing then he might need some help. As long as he gets what he needs, we libs are happy. Don't know where the elite assumption comes from. Well, yes I do I guess.

If life is a carousel, then some folks have an outside horse and some have an inside horse. You cannot reach the brass ring from an inside horse.

Simple. Personal accountability and responsibility.

The Kragen guy will get Medicare like everyone else. If he cannot work till he qualifies, he'll get Medicaid. He'll also get a check from Social Security. No brass ring for the guy at Kragen, but like I said, if he had chosen to swing a framing hammer instead of work at Kragen, he'd be picking out a 60" plasma for his 700 sq.ft. domicile.

Put that in terms of a governmental response.

Do nothing? Let them all fend for themselves?

Do nothing for her but help her kids? (how?)

Help her and the kids by sending her to rehab on your dollar, then trying to train her to work and care for them when she gets out?

This is where the rubber meets the road.

Which puts us back to the subject of welfare and other programs like medicaid. They already exist - he'll never be out on the street unless he out and out refuses to do anything.

Not retiring comfortably will be punishment for not planning.

Who knows? I'd tend to think of a older man working basic jobs as independently wealthy and needing something to do - like the joke about the CEO who wants to spend the rest of his days as a Wal Mart greeter..

rjp

Man, that's a leap!

I don't want to do anything about the non-contributors. Hell, I applaud their independence and celebrate their freedom. It is not necessary for a person to achieve anything at all in order for their life to have meaning. It's their life and it has meaning to them. Why do we feel so much angst when people make life choices that make us uncomfortable?

Rick, Only leads that way if you want to go there. I would never suggest that. I have no test for one's outcome in life. I think again I have not been clear enough. The immediate genetics of your family may have nothing to do with your outcome. Maybe no one as far back as you can recall was a football star but all of a sudden there you are.

I sometimes look at those Poker world series matches with this view. Sometimes probability surprises everyone.

Moses, Why we struggle to fix their lives really defines us as a whole. The idea of personal accountability and responsibility works for most people, not for all.

Rodeo, I don't agree with your suggestion of our need for intervention. Your case is too limiting. His kids may be fine by their own hands. And I don't jump to the conclusion that he blew it. But I don't pity him either.

Little something called foster parenting.

Around here, being locked up for drug use - you have to pay for your own rehab (which is hugely expensive) or stay locked up. Being locked up, the kids will become custody of the state and be put up for adoption or a foster home. There's government intervention for you. Doubtful you will get them back.

As far as I know, there's no free get out of jail while we watch your kids and give you a job card.

All the doors of opportunity are slammed in your face. You have never ending court and lawyer costs, "fees" for participating in outbound rehab, the cost of the rehab itself, work release, parole officers, it's nasty. You will always have an entry level job thanks to all the limitations you now have. Oh, and the stigma. You'll never be trusted for any job with a double digit per hour pay rate.

You're a felon and custody of the state when that happens to you. It's permanent. The felons do anything to get out, but eventually screw it up again. Simply costs too much to participate in the rehab and work release programs. Forget about having your own business.

Addicts are a nasty bunch. Always have an excuse and an apology, and it never, ever changes. They deserve it.

This presumes he could have made that choice. Maybe he made all the best choices he could have.

I am not looking to give him riches. But in the end of our lives there should be basic medical, food and shelter for all. Most will have accomplished this on their own, but a small number will not. And if we provide it with the attitude that "Look buddy, you screwed up, but we will provide the necessities for you", well I just think we are devaluing him.

Devaluing him? So we should worry about his self - esteem or offending him by reminding him he's using the people's money to get by these days? That's silly.

You're not getting that we already offer basic medical, support for food, and housing assistance. Frankly, it's too much already. We don't need to worry about his feeling.

rjp

This is a great thread!!

Steve: In all fairness, I certainly don't think you would be for gassing all the poor and unfortunate people in America. Republicans want to do that :p But I do think that the idea that some people are just destined to fail leads to some very scary ideas of how to "help" those people.

Moses: I think you HAVE to be concerned with the non-contributors, as long as we have programs in place that take US GDP and put it into their pockets for a lifetime. Welfare is a drag on our country in an era where global competition is growing exponentially. Oh, and I don't really care about their "life choice" as long as they don't expect MY tax dollars to put food in their belly for their lifetime simply because they made a "life choice" that didn't include an income.

Rodeo: I don't think your example is a good one. In that case, she is a crackhead. Smoking crack is illegal in this country. She should be in jail. Now, to give your argument the benefit of the doubt, here is what I think might be a decent solution:
1). She goes to jail for smoking crack.
2). While in jail she gets drug rehab and counseling to try and keep her from returning to drug addiction. She also gets some job counseling and gets placed in a probationary workers program to learn a skill which can be used in the marketplace.
3). Her family gets government assistance contingent on her participation in the work program for the specified time AND her holding a job down AND random drug tests for cocaine. If she fails any of these then the gubmint money stops, except for vouchers for diapers, baby food, children's clothes, etc. Yes, she could barter these for crack, but it's at least harder to do than getting cash. If she decides to turn her life around then she can re-apply for the gubmint assistance, same rules apply.
4). Her children would either (A) benefit from her rehabilitation and seeing their mother turn her life around or (B) be taken from the home of a crackhead where the environment is horrible and likely contributes to their likelihood of becoming drug addicts themselves.

The current system goes like this:
1). Crackhead (maybe) gets picked up and spends a few days in jail.
2). Crackhead applies for welfare and gets accepted where she gets a monthly check which can buy her more crack.
3). Children grow up in a crackhead house and learn that mommy doesn't have to work because she gets a magic check in the mail every month.
4). Kids never learn any sort of responsibility or work ethic and probably end up in poverty themselves drawing a welfare check.

Now, Rodeo, how would you handle the situation? I'm curious...

rjp,
It's not his self esteem that I am fundamentally concerned about. It is society's viewpoint about them that frames how we treat others on many issues.

Great analogy! Or is that a metaphor? We start at the center, and natural forces push us outward (closer to the ring) as speeds (age and wisdom) increase. The rewards are greater out there, but it’s harder to hang on. Our Kragen guy has clung to the safe center, choosing comfort rather than a chance for greater rewards. Even so, with proper planning and budgeting he can still succeed. Just no cheese on his burgers.

All this BS not withstanding, there is a moral obligation on the part of the outside riders to pass the gifts inward. I just lose it a bit when someone from the inner circle complains that the government (or the wealthy) are not doing enough.

Quick test. Microsoft’s and Walmart’s charitable donations are:
A: Wonderful
B: Woefully inadequate

Moral? Get off your A$$ and move on :)

Hey!! That's a great line! We should start a website and call it "Moveon.org"!

Oh..wait...

Sorry, I just don't get what you saying. You saying that you want him to retire with greater dignity (maybe we can give him a new Cadillac) or he doesn't have the basic needs met?

If you tell me the latter, it's not true. We do have public assistance available for guys like him. If it's not enough to take a trip to Europe, and it definitely isn't going out in style -well that's simply too bad.

From where I sit, I could care less about what others think of me. I don't need anyone to get by and no one dictates anything in my life. We should all spend a little less time worrying about the next guy, and take care of ourselves. I respect others who see it the same way - they're not liabilities to anyone else.

I still think you meant self-esteem though, that's laughable.

rjp

I was discussing this last night with the wife. No worries or responsibilities, no one cares what you do/don't do and your only concerns are comfort and entertainment. After a little debating we agreed that getting a government job would be the best of both worlds. :) I laugh but I'm serious.

You liberals are so intolerant! ;) Why can't you tolerate the choices people make make with their lives? It reminds me of the old adage; Liberals love diversity, but their definition of diversity is people who look different but think the same.

Maddox.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1133981699.gif

Moses,

My emphasis is really on the why in why we struggle. I really don't think we should preemptorially intervene in much of anything, particularily people's lives. But at the end, why and how we provide needy assistance does define us.


Randy,
like the cartoon. I disagree with most of the diversity nonsense because it typically resolves it self around race, gender or personal sex preference as defining classes. Type casting demeans us all.

Moses, you're a smart guy and so is Steve. I don't think you two disagree. In this instance I notice you are talking about two different things.

You notice that in America, folks basic needs are take care of. That's enough. No need to make lazy folks rich. Steve seems to also be okay with basic assistance but not more.

I think Steve is sort of thinking out loud and he's having a hard time generating the discussion he wants to have. Regardless of whether we take care of folks' basic needs, or nothing, or provide them luxury apartments with a view of the city, he notices that we are programmed by heredity and environment so fully that some folks are simply not going to be achievers in the American sense. Steve wonders why we don't all have your attitude. He wonders why we make judgements upon those lazy SOB's.

I suspect it makes us feel superior.

It's an end game analysis, not something for the gamer to dwell upon playing the game. Every poker player thinks he has a chance, but after the series is over, the probabilties of the cards determined the winner to a large extent. And so, every person will normally try his best to succeed.

As applied to those who need assistance at the end of their days, it might change someone's attitude about the person needing assistance if we accept such probabilities.

Some of this is hard to swallow.

Steve, if you play poker with players better than you, you will lose over the long haul. Poker is as much a game of luck as golf, tennis, or auto racing.

Supe, 'programmed by heredity and environment so fully that some folks are simply not going to be achievers'??? Using that logic, Hitler was right.

Sure glad no one sold me on this concept when I was 21.

I still contend this conversation is going in an opposite direction from where you guys might want. In short, I can see Hitler having the same discussion eighty or ninety years ago.

The coupling of heredity and environment conocts itself into an evil and explosive mixture, which more often has done as much a disservice to those in need as it has benefitted them. Why? Because there will always be another group who might say, "Hey, you helped them. What about us?" and from there, focus their ire on the group that's been helped.

This can lead to many, many social problems: the LA Riots for example.

Lately, I've taken a hard anti-Democrat view to programs of any sort designed to help one group catch up when so many others have fallen two steps back. I'd rather see all the benefit programs cut, than see this group or that race or that culture or this sex get thrusted ahead because of aimless fair-weather government concern.

If everyone in equal part can't be lifted from the bottom, then the system is simply broken and the programs themselves are unfairly biased.

But as far as "programmed by heredity and environment," I can't see that as anything more than an excuse. In fact, whomever feels empowered and superior over such an excuse, should not be held nearly as accountable as the person who uses it as their own excuse for the sad situation they find themselves in.

Of course, accountability is about as rare these days as table manners. :rolleyes:

Best thread I've read in a very long time.

I bet if we list down all the characteristics one must possess to achieve financial success, we will agree that the Kragen fellow was missing one or more that have nothing to do with genetics or environment.

I also enjoy this thread and the lack of rancor is refreshing.
Stevepaa, you sound like a nice guy and I believe the good Lord is going to ask me first and foremost how I treated the least of my brothers. And I hope I have some time left to improve in that regard. However, I'd ask you to reconsider your alarming choice of the words "genes", as you use it in the first post in this thread. The Hitler references are apropo here, as outrageous as that may sound to you. While it cannot be disputed that if you plotted the outcome of any human endeavor it would align itself in a bell curve, cause cannot be determined by plotting outcome.
Jeff Higgins, I thought your post was an excellent one, and illustrates that neither side has the corner on the market on concern for their fellow man. Whenwe're paying the taxes we're paying, we have a right to weigh in on how the money is disbursed.

Yes, genes is a loaded word. Innate traits may be better.

The Hitler references are not really appropriate. That requires a group to be singled out. I presume no singular group. I would expect a distribution of races, and ethnic groups. I am not suggesting helping any group. My thrust has been that perhaps we should look upon the truly needy from a different perspective than "well, he didn't plan very well", or " he didn't work hard enough".

I think some of you are misreading what Steve is pointing to, and what I have tried to point to. Let me ask you this: Aside from genetics and environment ("nature and nurture"), what do you believe would be a third category of input into our decisions?

My story about the aliens is one that gets considered often in philosophical and psychological circles. This notion of "free will" is interesting, and there is a good argument to be made that "free will" does not exist, except as our plain observation that we are insiders to our decision-making process.

Steve is not trying to argue anyone's superiority or inferiority. He's just pointing out that our actions are to a large degree (if not completely, 100%) DETERMINED. "Determination", as I say, is an interesting philosophical position, and some of you seem to have not worked through the elements of that discussion. This notion that our decisions are "free" can become difficult to defend.

And then taking a look at the big picture, we notice that there will be winners and there will be losers in our economic system. By definition. If any of you think we can all be winners in a capitalism system, then you have not thought it through. Steve asserts that how we treat the 'losers' becomes a powerful statement about our society. About our obedience to the main Christian principles stated and restated and repeated many times in the Bible.

Beautifully put as always. I guess the liberal/conservative dichotomy resides in how we define societys "losers".

I would not define the Kragens guy as a loser. Nor would I define the single welfare mother of 8 kids as a "loser". And no, not the healthy homeless crack junky either.

I would reserve public support for those unable, not unwilling to help themselves. Yup! I believe in free will, self determination and freedom.

I'll jump back in here, because while I enjoy the philosophical discussion, it's policy that really turns me on :)

How does society (meaning government) differentiate between the "unable" and "unwilling"?

I'm an uneducated single mother of two toddlers with an IQ of 65, my mother is dead and I never knew my father. I am barely literate. I have another kid on the way. I can't support the children I already have, and I have no idea how to help myself.

Am I unable or unwilling? Do I get anything from the government? Do my kids?