Rick. You assume there are only two traits- hard work and determination that are necessary for success. With only your two traits, then anybody who cannot self sustain, is that way because he is basically lazy. You argue that in this capitalistic society, everyone can win: there will be no poor.


I presume there are many others including physical and psychological factors.
I don't presume any single poor person can not become rich, nor any rich person can not become poor. Those that are poor are a dynamic group just as those that are rich are a dynamic group. I presume there will always be rich people and poor people with the vast majority of people doing okay.

I am just considering an alternative explanation.
I'll leave it at that.SmileWavy

Everyone has the oppurtunity to "win" from a financial standpoint, that does not eliminate the poor, as not everyone will take that uppurtunity. I've turned down two chances in my life so far.

First, I never said there were only two factors. I simply said that in my mind the most important "bell curve" measures hard work, not genetic makeup. I completely agree with you that there are certainly some people who have a knack for business or art or metalworking or flying a plane or selling Porsche parts online. The difference between us is that you seem to think that someone who fails in our society was never able to succeed in the first place. I think they didn't succeed because they didn't try hard enough.

I don't discount people's backgrounds in how difficult it might be for them to succeed, obviously Paris Hilton has it easy and the kid in the projects has it tough. I think government should be there to help out that kid in the projects too. But I patently reject this notion that the failures in our society were genetically programmed to fail.

You know what's odd? Most here are focused on the theoretical opportunities available to Americans -- does each individual person have an "opportunity" to make it in the world, to succeed in life? Much of the discussion in the thread is focused like a laser on that issue. Genes, genetics, environment, etc.

I think the reason for that is people, particularly the right-leaning crowd, want to make benefit determinations based upon whether a person needs society's help because of some personal failing, because they didn't "try" hard enough.

While that question is interesting to me, it really is of little value in the real world. A 22 year old single mother in the South Bronx with a 7 year old, a 4 year old and a baby of 6 months no doubt made bad choices in her life, and could have, in a theoretical world, "succeeded." If she had not dropped out of school, if she had practiced celibacy, if she had kept her job at the coffee shop and saved her money, if she had put oil in her car before it blew up, if, if, if ...

But she didn't do all those things, and never will. To her, "success" is finding 3 or 4 eggs to make breakfast, or getting her 7 year old's hair done pretty, or getting her mother to repay the $5 she lent her.

There are millions like her, tens of millions probably. Society needs a way to deal with them. Society needs a way to help the children of these people escape their parents' fates. Not for them, for US. For our country, our society.

Going around judging whether these people are in the position they are because of laziness or fate or genetics does not move the ball. Figuring out a social program that helps them succeed, and gives their kids a chance to succeed, does.

Going around judging whether these people are in the position they are because of laziness or fate or genetics does not move the ball. Figuring out a social program that helps them succeed, and gives their kids a chance to succeed, does.


Right Rodeo, and welfare does none of those things.

No, that person might have succeeded very well and then fell upon hard times. The group is in flux. Earlier, I also said I don't think they are preprogrammed. I believe in free will. I believe a change in environment can help. But, some have traits that become predominant and lead to failure at some time, no matter how hard they try.
So at any one time there are a group of poor, we can provide assistance to them to reinforce those behaviors and traits to help them succeed. But as some move up, some move down. There will always be a group of poor, and I have said it will not and should not be a definable group by race or ethnicity.

My thrust has been to alter the view that we have of them. It just isn't about how hard they try.

And as I have said earlier, the current welfare system does not do this function. It has reinforced behaviors detrimental to success.

Group hug? :)

Sounds good to me.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...s/beerchug.gif

There is some exaggeration going on here that is not helpful. Moses, liberals don't believe that MOST people cannot take care of themselves.

SoCal, it is a brute fact that heredity and environment have combined to give some folks an outside horse, and some folks have an inside horse. The folks with an inside horse are not doomed, but many of them are highly unlikely to get a brass ring.

One of the programs I have worked with are sheltered workshops. These programs attempt to make certain individuals as independent as possible, through janitorial training, for example. They are allowed to be paid less than minimum wage under certain Federal guidelines. These people are not going to get a brass ring. Period.

Calm down, big guy ... If you want to smack around a liberal, this is not the opportunity.

I never said or implied that the current system did or did not accomplish anything. My only point is that whatever system we have should focus on how to lift people from poverty and dependence, and not on whether to afford services conditioned upon why people find themselves in need of help.

That 22 year old mother that I keep bringing up, but everyone else wants to ignore in favor of some theoretical discussion of whether her genes or environment or laziness or stupidity got her there, is the face of the problem. And her 6 month old kid is the face of the problem in the future.

We can test them genetically all you like, but until we figure out a way to get them out of poverty and dependence, those tests are a waste of time and money.

Let me take this one step further... Let's look at your sheltered workshop. I truly believe that anyone who puts in 40 hours deserves adequate food, shelter and heathcare. And I'm also convinced that such a policy would ultimately be less costly in both dollars and human dignity than the present system.

Rodeo--Wasn't intending on smacking around anybody, either liberal or conservative. To me, there is an thought running through your posts on this thread which is that the systems being proposed have fatal flaws. I would agree that there will always be flaws in any system to help the disadvantaged, loopholes to exploit. But, if we could get the liberal powers in this country to finally simply ACKNOWLEDGE that their welfare state is a damaging and detrimental system, it would be a quantum leap forward. The first step of recovery is realizing you have a problem...

And I can't understand why you keep attributing the genetic comment to me. Steve said that, I have done my level best to refute it. It is your liberal colleague that implies genetics at work, not I.

Rodeo,
I don't want any test for any traits or genetic factors. I am pointing out there are many factors that determine a person's ability to be self sufficient other than hard work and determination. So that we should not presume that hard work alone will raise someone up. Once we accept that there may be other factors involved, then the answers we provide to assist them will include other support factors in addition to finding/providing (WPA?) a job to them. Once we accept that "hard work" alone may not be sufficent, we will not automatically view them as merely lazy. And maybe once we accept that perhaps that might be any one of us at some time, we might make some real change.

Ok Steve, since you and I will never agree on this genetics thing, lemme ask you a different question. Let's presume you are correct. How would you go about finding these people who have genetic issues and what specifically would you do to help them that isn't already being done?

Rick, I do not know what is already being done. Do we do random drug screening? Do we do psych tests for learning deficiencies, Asperger syndrome, dyslexia, etc. Do we test for chemical imbalances, bi-polar disorder? Do we test for physical issues, poor hearing, eyesight, lack of oxygen to the brain because of lung or heart issues? I would just try to look for root cause for why a person can't sustain a job. Maybe he is just lazy. But it strikes me that the number who are just lazy would be small. The current system rewards bad behaviour, and reinfores behavior that will keep them in the system. The effect of this is to reward them for not making a step forward. We need to change the system to enable them to move up and be self sufficient. The time needed for assistance should be no more than a year. The system we have perpetuates their condition. The effect should be to reduce the number of people getting assistance. We will always have poor people but they should not have the same names year after year.

We need to recognize that money is not the answer to everything.
We should ask what brought them to this condition.
We should enable them to move up.

Wow, surprising that your system is almost exactly what myself and the other conservatives on the board have offered. Guess the only difference between us is our thoughts on how they got there. At least you aren't defending the current system like most Democrats do. Kudos.

Actually I think you're wrong about what "most democrats" do......


I have long held the opinion that the right and the left want the same end result, they just differ on how to get to it.

Your statement about "most democrats" indicates to me you aren't listening to what others are actually saying...because that's not what most democrats do....

I'll agree with CC here. There seems to be some cartoon parody of liberals among the conservative thinkers here. Read what we are saying, not what Rush says we are saying.

If you have some silly notion that liberals feel bad for everyone, and want people to be on the public dole for all of their lives, and all their children's lives, you'll never actually hear anything we are saying.

Rick, your statement in your last post is a paraphrase of 4 or 5 posts I made on this thread, but you never heard it I guess.

"our system is almost exactly what myself and the other conservatives on the board have offered. Guess the only difference between us is our thoughts on how they got there"

My only difference with you is you don't have a "system." You have a goal that is identical to mine and 99.9% of liberals --economic self-sufficiency for the bottom of society.

Now tell us how you acheive your goals. Because that's where the rubber meets the road.

I agree with the VP.
We make our own nest.

Rick, I think asking how they got there is a fundamental part of how we treat the problem.

Sometimes in teaching kids, you learn that they have issues you never thought of, poor nutrition, various learning disorders, emotional issues when their parents divorce or medical issues-mild epileptic seizures. Or maybe they just can't get it at that time. It's like calculus, all of a sudden the light comes on. I taught kids who had all those issues.

We recognize some aspects of this in the general workforce. When people get cancer we allow a time period during which their productivity is lessened as they cope with radiation/surgery/chemo therapy. Or with a death of a parent. Or with a child's illness. All in my group this past year.

For people who are bipolar, it can be deadly. It takes constant checking and alterations of medicine dosage and therapy for them to function properly.

Understanding how they got where they are enables us to provide the right support/assistance to get them self sufficient again. It is like parenting on a grand scale. Any parent who just gives money to their kids because they can't hold a job is not doing the child any favor. Any parent who thinks their failing child just needs to study harder is missing the boat.

Ok, CC and Rodeo. Please point me to a quote from a Democrat where they acknowledge that the welfare state is broken. If "most Democrats" don't defend welfare, this should be easy for you...

Steve,

I think that people that are physically unable to work for medical or psychological reasons already are placed into the disability program. So we are really talking about those who are medically able to work but cannot or will not. I am for assistance programs with a time limit, say two years. In this program you would be trained with a new skill to use in the workplace. Same program I outlined about 2 pages ago in this thread (Rodeo, howcome you keep saying no one is putting up a plan? I have seen at least two proposed).

Your program, Steve, would be wildly expensive BTW. Can you imagine sending every poor person in this country through a full battery of medical and psychological testing? Yeesh.

How about evidence: Clinton fixed it. 5 year lifetime max. I think your views on welfare laws are skewed (or maybe more accurately, outdated).

And in return, show me actions that the Republicans in power have done even one thing to address it further with all the power they now have....surely this should've been addressed by now...and not even a little peep in the form of a bill out of them....

Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

Clinton FIXED IT?? That's so out of touch it's laughable. Man, I feel much better now knowing that our welfare problem has been fixed by Clinton. WHEW.

Please elaborate. What would you do? What do you know about the welfare reform bill?

And when will your party ever address it further (answer...never.....they're not about what kind of stuff....remember, actions speak louder than words......I can't think of one action by republicans with regard to this topic)

CC, I am not a Republican. Sheesh. It is not MY PARTY. Sorta like me talking about the Democrats as YOUR party. As I understand it you are very adamant about being a Libertarian...

Ok crap, I thought you were.

I'm sorry. Won't happen again.

I'm just wondering though, since you feel like Clinton fixed the problem with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996...which party was in power in Congress in 1996? Who authored that bill? And which party voted for it and against its passage?

I am under the impression Clinton led the initiative for the bill. That guy was pretty moderate, despite the inaccurate attempts to paint him otherwise.....

And why aren't the republicans, knowing full well anything just about anything they draft will be passed now, not doing anything about it?

On August 22, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3734, the controversial legislation which repeals the 60 year old social safety net for the poor and requires welfare recipients to work. The legislation is very much like H.R. 4, the previous welfare bill that the President vetoed at the urging of NOW and other advocacy organizations. And, like the previous bill, the President received severe criticism from community activists, women's rights, social service advocacy, labor, minority, and religious groups in embracing this Republican-led effort to change the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. In response, the nominee promised at the Democratic National Convention that he would to make welfare reform "successful" by helping to create a million new jobs by the year 2000, with tax credits for companies who hire welfare recipients and from state plans which may utilize "savings" from welfare program cuts to create jobs for recipients.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1996_Personal_Responsibility_and_W ork_Opportunity_Reconciliation_Act

Still think the evil Republicans do nothing to try and fix welfare?

Who said evil? And yes, I do think they're doing nothing to fix welfare further. They certainly can, but they talk about flag burning and give billions to anyone who asks.

You laughed earlier when I said "fixed." Now are you saying it's fixed?

And yes, Clinton actually campaigned on reforming welfare.

This was your original post. "I can't think of ONE ACTION"...

How about the welfare reform bill in the first place? Isn't that an ACTION?? You seem to be under the impression that Clinton swooped down and passed a Welfare Reform Bill. In fact, it was the "Contract with America" Republican led Congress. I have been trying to get the voting records but haven't been able to. The Sentate vote was 78-21 though. Wanna bet which party the 21 "nays" were in?

And no I don't think it's "fixed" based on the recent review of the New Jersey Welfare Reform initiative which still showed a 48% rate of continued unemployment at 5 years while on the program. That doesn't sound fixed to me.

I'm telling you, it was under the direction of Clinton. He even campaigned on it.....just like balancing of the budget.

Now why in the hell are the republican led congress/president acting like liberals?

That's the question of the day. The Republican party sucks, IMHO. By the way, Clintons welfare reform was a well intended but empty piece of legislation that is largely ignored by the states, who write the checks. In fact our beautiful city by the bay actively subsidizes homelessness! We give weekly cash payments to homeless people. I'm not kidding! No checks, as that would be unfair to the tenderloin transients who have no bank accounts. If you are homeless, it would be foolish to live anywhere else.

Rick, I think the cost overall would be much less than we have now. It will require more personal involvement. Again sort of like parenting, teaching. Good teachers do it all the time. So do good parents.

Oh ok, since you told me it was under Clinton's direction and he apparently did it all by himself without any help from the Republican led congress it must be so...you told me so...

This is 4 years old, but seems a pretty good indication that Welfare reform was successful in getting lots and lots of people off welfare.

It seems odd, Rick that you are going after liberals and democrats pretty hard on the welfare issue, but (1) "the culture of dependence" seems a relic of the past, and (2) after 5 years in control of the executive and legislative branches, the Rupubs don't appear to think welfare is an issue. If they do, they certainly have put forth no proposals to make it better, much less enacted them. So what's your specific problem with welfare today?


Aug. 22, 2001 -- Five years ago today, a massive overhaul of the nation's welfare system was signed into law. "Welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life," then-President Bill Clinton said as he approved the bill. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act imposed a five-year lifetime limit on assistance to welfare recipients. That cap kicks in this year and next for tens of thousands of families. ??Clinton faced vehement protests from some of his staunchest supporters when he signed welfare reform bill. But today, the measures aimed at getting people off assistance and into jobs are generally deemed a success. At its peak in 1996, Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the main government program providing income assistance to the poor -- had a caseload of 4.55 million families. It is now less than half that.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/welfare/010822.welfare.html

By the way, I'm not saying welfare today does or does not work. I really have heard almost nothing about the program, good or bad, in years. I certainly didn't perceive it as a hot button conservative issue.

The conservative agenda today seems to be abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, environmental deregulation, and curbing litigation.

It is indeed odd. It's appears they genuinely don't care about the issues and addressing them, they only care about finding a way to put the blame on liberals and democrats for anything.....

Putting words in my mouth?

It was under Clinton's direction. Of course congress helped...things like this can't be passed without BOTH congress (including democrats in Congress) AND the president. That's how it works in these parts. Still doesn't change the fact it was under Clinton's direction though. Try as you might to spin it that it was all the Repubicans doing, it wasn't....


This is what Clinton said on signing:

"This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning, and we have to all assume responsibility," Clinton added.

When the hell is this going to happen? It's prime time for this.......