Born Losers

[livi]

I wish I had the mental capacity to be happy without money.

I do not.

There´s a loser for you.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Dantilla
Superman, once again you are insightful, and looking for real answers. I like this attitude much better than the one you started this thread with.

But before we spend more money, I would like some details of the new plan. I'm not sure you have them (I don't), but if so, I'd sure be willing to listen. At least some basic concepts.

We live in a great country. A land of opportunity. I don't see myself as being in competition with my fellow Americans, as much as I see an ability to provide for my family in the way I see best.

Thank you. I have a great deal of respect for you, Dan.

You are correct. I envy people like Legion who have all the answers. I don't. But here's a start: The programs I am thinking of would ask the question "Why is this person not achieving?" I suspect the answer varies between individuals. I honestly, sincerely, vigorously believe that in a good number of cases, these people just don't know where to go or what to look for. They need advice and they need confidence. They need to see and believe that opportunities are there and reachable. I think there are people out there who don't believe that. Or maybe they do, but they have little idea how to make it happen. It's not just a matter of answering an ad.

Here's a bit of information that might be useful: I do labor relations in the construction industry. The industry desperately needs journeyman workers. To get them, it needs apprentices who are learning. What we have found is that apprentices need a "mentor." A mentor is somebody who will help them acclimate to the construction site environment. The communication and hierrarchy stuff, and the hazing, are different from these people's previous expereiences. Workers also need to develop transportation strategies. If the car breaks down, how are you going to get to work on time? Day care. Alternate day care just in case. These are the stumbling blocks, and if nobody is helping these people, they often fail. If somebody does help them with advice and counsel, they succeed. These apprentices are, by and large, the same disadvantaged people who are on, or qualify for, welfare.

BTW, these same poor people, if they are successful and develop construction careers, will earn enough money for houses and boats and kids' college.

[legion]

Supe, your "plan" is yet another well-intentioned erosion of personal responsibility. It is a person's sole responsibility for being successful or not, and it is their sole responsibility to do something about it. Sure, your plan might make some people successful that would otherwise not be, but some will also react violently to being forced into a mold.

And now the elephant in the corner of the room? Who will pay for this "plan"? If it is me, through taxes, that is making me responsible for other people's success (or failure). I don't want anybody responsible for me, and I don't want to be responsible for anyone else. Therein lies freedom.

[Moneyguy1]

Like the other thread.....Gated Communities with armed security personnel are the answer.

[Superman]

And again, it's a funny exchange.

Legion, do you think you're not paying right now for the failure of the current system? What things in your life do you fix, once and for all, because you have found that putting bandaid on the problem just causes an ongoing periodic expense whereas fixing the problem, while more expensive than the bandaid, is actually cheaper in the long run? I assume you've figured this out in your personal and business lives, and I wonder what makes you think different principles apply here.

[legion]

How do I pay for other people's failures? How?

How does it cost me a dime unless I am somehow forced to provide for them?

[Moneyguy1]

Ah..That is the rub.....You (and I) ARE paying for them, whether it be through welfare, prisons or any number of public assistance programs.

I keep asking myself....Which is the more expensive alternative...early intervention or long-term dole?

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day...Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Simplistic, but with more than a grain of truth.

I would also respectfully argue against the idea that it is the individual's sole responsibility in the quest for success (however that is defined). Supe speaks about mentoring. In every career I can name, a newcomer will rise or fall depending upon the acceptance and assistance of the "old hands" or those in positions of power within the organization. That is the way the world works. No one operates totally in a vacuum. Manufacturers cannot survive without labor, and the opposite is true. A symbiotic relationship exists in an economy.

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
How do I pay for other people's failures? How?

How does it cost me a dime unless I am somehow forced to provide for them?

Right now, you're paying for welfare in the form of taxes.

Also, your insurance premiums cover the costs of deadbeats without insurance as well as deadbeats that steal cars and break into peoples' houses.

Youre paying in lots of ways. If more people were buying computers, they'd cost less. Same with everything else.

Immigrants are coming into this country because we've got jobs that welfare recipients won't take.

I really wonder if you're on the same planet as the rest of us, Legion. It seems clear you are NOT looking at this broad picture. Which is why your viewpoints make us scratch our heads. Wake up. I'm not just criticising to be nasty. Do you really understand the impact of underachieving? You apparently haven't thought about the real cost.

[Superman]

Bob's vision is crystal clear.

Again, I am not being mean on purpose but it's as though when it comes to social problems and rational thinking, someone gave Legion a fish.

[Moneyguy1]

I do not mean to carp, but this is giving me a haddock.

I know...I know...some mean spirited poster will tell me to go perch somewhere.

I may be floundering, but I am having a whale of a good time while skating on thin ice.....

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Superman
Right now, you're paying for welfare in the form of taxes.

Also, your insurance premiums cover the costs of deadbeats without insurance as well as deadbeats that steal cars and break into peoples' houses.

Youre paying in lots of ways. If more people were buying computers, they'd cost less. Same with everything else.

Immigrants are coming into this country because we've got jobs that welfare recipients won't take.

I really wonder if you're on the same planet as the rest of us, Legion. It seems clear you are NOT looking at this broad picture. Which is why your viewpoints make us scratch our heads. Wake up. I'm not just criticising to be nasty. Do you really understand the impact of underachieving? You apparently haven't thought about the real cost.

Supe, you are missing Legion's point that he should not be held responsible for other people's band aids in the first place let alone an expensive long term treatment plan.

Even though some of us may not like it, as the tax codes are now, we are being forced to take responsibility for others, your philosophy is that we should pay even more to now to avoid paying much more later. I say we are paying plenty now and at some point, enough has to be enough.

I do not have a problem with mentoring, but no amount of money from the govt is going to provide that and ultimately the only way a large number of welfare abusers are going to help themselves, is when it gets TOUGHER to live off of the govt rather than EASIER.

[Superman]

No, I don't think I missed Legion's point. I was expecting that some folks here would flatly deny any responsibility toward these people. Legion has done that, predicatably. It's an ethical question, and while most folks know the right answer, some do not.

And aside from the pure ethical question, there is a separate practical question. You see, even if it were morally acceptable which it is not, turning our backs on the "have nots" would not work. In a very simplistic analysis it works, but in reality, it will not. I believe that a big part of why we have these social programs is because we cannot afford NOT to. I'll save you the explanation of why. It's more complex than you're comfortable with. And again, I'm saying that abruptly, but not in a mean spirit. To you, if we remove the safety net, then folks will become productive because they have to in order to survive. I think that's very elegant and simple......and wishful......and not accurate. I think those people will avoid starving, but not in the way you assume.

And yes, I really honestly believe that fixing the problem, or at least getting at the root causes, would be cheaper in the long run. But I also believe that our beloved "system" really doesn't want to solve this problem. Overspending on programs that don't work is ideal. It accomplishes just exactly, strategically, what some folks want to accomplish. One of them is to not solve the problems.

And just as an example, I don't think our economic system works as well if a citizen's worst case scenario does not include homelessness. I think our system requires that folks in new Mercedes drive by folks sleeping in boxes, and I think it requires that they both be aware of each other's situation.

[red-beard]

Morals are not absolutes and your morals are not mine. It is immoral to _FORCE_ me to give money to someone less well off. If I decide to do so, that is then my choice. But here and now, I do not have a choice. I am threatened with fine and imprisonment if I do not fork over.

Supe, pay what you want. Don't force me to go along with your socialist dreams.

[JCF]

Originally posted by daepp
I think we should all want to help those you mention (the wounded vet or the disaster victim) - in fact, I personally believe it is my Christian duty to do so. I do not, however, think that it's the government's job to do so with my taxes.

And you have not addressed the most common welfare recipient. And how do you like your taxes going to support able-bodied men who are participating in destructive behavior?

Who has the latest #'s on how many people who are not worthy are receiving welfare ?

I don't like that my money is going to help those who would better help themselves either ( even more obscene is to see it wasted in such gigantic amounts in Iraq).
Everyone has the right to give to help those vets and disaster victims now - how come there is so much more needed ?

I don't mind erring on the side of need though. Being a Christian I am sure you can appreciate that.

"The" government - It's OUR government isn't it ? or it should be.

I am not saying I know the answer. But I know the answer whatever it is does not start with dismissing groups of people less fortunate than ourselves or not as materialistic as others as LOSERS.
I don't consider teachers LOSERS .
Nor , just coming back from a trip to Cali and Dallas those people who I saw doing our dirty work with great care and skill and a smile on their face for very little money no doubt and who would be capable of much more if given the chances we had.

[legion]

Originally posted by Superman
No, I don't think I missed Legion's point.

You did, completely, totally, and hopelessly.

Please move to France where they have implemented your dream and have 30% unemployment. Where people who want to benefit from their effort leave in droves. Where immigrants with no desire to work are coming in in droves. Where unions have effectively prevented anyone from getting fired--and no one can get a job and no one is motivated to do the best they can.

Do you remember that this country was founded because of excessive taxation? You think coddling those who won't do for themselves avoids revolution, but completely ignore that taking too much from people who do produce meets the same end.

[Superman]

Originally posted by red-beard
Morals are not absolutes.....

Another moral relativist. Clever enough to fool a lot of people, I bet. But no......morality is not relative. Ethics is not relative. Ethical principles are absolute. Fact patterns change, but ethical principles do not. Ethical questions can also be complex and difficult. But no......ethical principles are not relative.

[Superman]

Originally posted by red-beard
It is immoral to _FORCE_ me to give money to someone less well off. If I decide to do so, that is then my choice. But here and now, I do not have a choice. I am threatened with fine and imprisonment if I do not fork over.

Supe, pay what you want. Don't force me to go along with your socialist dreams.

Another not-so-clever dodge. Charity is a private matter, blah, blah, blah. That doesn't fly. Here's why:

We are making a decision. A decision whether to take care of these unfortunate people. I presume you are a voter. When you get a chance to either

1) cast a vote to fund an effective program to help underpriveleged people or

2) case a vote to deny that program and save your selfish ass some precious bit of your income.....

what do you vote. Voting #2 while chanting the mantra of "charity is a private matter" does not fool the smart people you know. You're still denying the program. You're still part of America that says "No, we will NOT take care of these people. If they are to survive, they will either have to work.....or live off someone's charity that does not use my tax money.

We can make these decisions as a society, and in fact we DO make them. You are, I suspect, one of the folks who would like to turn this country into a country that does NOTHING for its less priveleged. Again, the ol' "Private charities will take care of them and I support those charities" dodge is crap. I don't buy it, and it's still a decision to be a selfish society. A selfish country.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Superman
. Ethical principles are absolute.

Which is precisely why you and I will never agree 100% on welfare or unions. Our views about what is right and wrong do not mesh perfectly. I can live with that.

[legion]

Supe, you must believe that altruism motivates people. It does not. People work for their own benefit. Take away a person's ability to better his situation, and you have also taken away his motivation to do his job.

And when no one is motivated to work, who is there to tax?

[Superman]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Supe, you are missing Legion's point that he should not be held responsible for other people's band aids in the first place let alone an expensive long term treatment plan.

I've heard this "you missed the point, superman" thing before. I see them as a signal to look harder. Sometimes they cause me to pick up on something I did miss. If I have missed something, please help me out. Here, what I hear is you saying is exactly what your paraphrase suggests. You do not want to foot the bill for other peoples' problems. That's DARNED SIMPLE. I think I get it. Please help me out of you still think otherwise. But first, let me help YOU:

I think what I'm missing is acceptance of your conclusion. You conclude that when a society helps out its poor people, using community money, it ruins the country. It causes a large portion of the nation to become lazy and selfish, causes runaway unemployment, perhaps causes evil labor unions to demolish the country's economy, and causes the Earth to spin widly into the Sun and burn to a cinder. That's the part I don't accept. One of the world's most socialist countries, Sweden, is and has for a very long time been regularly recognized as having the highest, or at least nearly the highest, standard of living in the world. The United States, on the other hand, is slipping out of the winner's circle in a number of areas including economics.