Simple view of liberal vs conservative

[stevepaa]

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.

[Tervuren]

Originally posted by stevepaa
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.

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by stevepaa
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.

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.

[Rodeo]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
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.
But I patently reject this notion that the failures in our society were genetically programmed to fail.

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.

[Moses]

Originally posted by stevepaa

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

Group hug?

[stevepaa]

Sounds good to me.

[Superman]

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.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
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.

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.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Superman


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.

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[stevepaa]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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?

[stevepaa]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
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....

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by cool_chick
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.

[sammyg2]

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

[stevepaa]

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.