- This topic has 6 voices and 44 replies.
-
Posts
-
No--you are not wrong. I am guilty of thinking that we are all Americans and all in this bark of democracy together. It will fail unless we adopt and support policies that provide some for all.
That's all fine and dandy, and I don't think we should neglect the legitimately poor, but we are doing far more than that. We are enabling the lazy with our current policies. Yes, we are in this democracy together, but we all have to work for it, not just some of us. Laziness is not good for society because it will bring it down. Most philosophers from Aristotle on have already acknowledged this. Why is THIS so difficult to see for some people?
No--you are not wrong. I am guilty of thinking that we are all Americans and all in this bark of democracy together. It will fail unless we adopt and support policies that provide some for all.
That's all fine and dandy, and I don't think we should neglect the legitimately poor, but we are doing far more than that. We are enabling the lazy with our current policies. Yes, we are in this democracy together, but we all have to work for it, not just some of us. Laziness is not good for society because it will bring it down. Most philosophers from Aristotle on have already acknowledged this. Why is THIS so difficult to see for some people?
What ski says works for me.
Wally:In the best of all possible worlds we would have equality of opportunity. We have never had it from 1789 until today. So much depends upon where you were born, whether you have good genes, what sex and color you are, how smart you are, how driven, your ethnicity, your personality and even your hair! You were a teacher as I was and we know about having favorites among the serried ranks of our charges. Was I absolutely fairas a teacher--absolutely not. Were you?
Sadly, yes; meant failing some kids that I couldn't legitimately justify passing and failing some that should have been failed on GP...
--kudos on the movie--a truly great film IMHO.
Indeed; and thanks.
That's all fine and dandy, and I don't think we should neglect the legitimately poor, but we are doing far more than that. We are enabling the lazy with our current policies. Yes, we are in this democracy together, but we all have to work for it, not just some of us. Laziness is not good for society because it will bring it down. Most philosophers from Aristotle on have already acknowledged this. Why is THIS so difficult to see for some people?You are not concerned about lazy people--only lazy poor people who you support--right?SO SKI--Lets take off the gloves. What are we to do with lazy booze and drug ridden lazy muckabouts who cannot hold a job? Do you suggest camps, workhouses or merely vigorous enforcement of the vagrancy laws? Enlighten me. What is to be done?
SO SKI--Lets take off the gloves. What are we to do with lazy booze and drug ridden lazy muckabouts who cannot hold a job? Do you suggest camps, workhouses or merely vigorous enforcement of the vagrancy laws? Enlighten me. What is to be done?
I'm going to interject the plan proposed by one of my fellow teachers (formerly)... since ski is off line and to pass the time: my friend proposed putting them all on an island and giving them all the drugs and booze they could use... they, he opined, would be happy and so would we.
Who would police them and enforce what few laws were permitted to exist.? Would there be courts or just summary punishment meted out by sworn officers of the law? This sounds as silly as some ideas floated decades ago about making life better for Americans by giving all the colored people the state of Mississippi and erecting barriers.
What are we to do with lazy booze and drug ridden lazy muckabouts who cannot hold a job?
What ever happened to personal responsibility?You don't give them any benefits until they straighten themselves out. Federally funded counseling? Yes. Foodstamps, rental assistance, free medical? No. Maybe someday they'll wake up, face reality, and realize that life is not easy. I totally support drug testing for welfare recipients.What about a doctor or lawyer who became a cocaine addict and lost his/her license? Do we "reward" them by saying "Oh, that's OK buddy. So sorry. Here. Even though you screwed up your own life by choosing to do drugs, have some free healthcare, food, etc. It's on the American people."? Or do we let them suffer the consequences of their own actions and choices?Do we equate these drunks and drug addicts with responsible people who have worked hard all their lives and due to the economic downturn, have lost their jobs and legitimately need the assitance? I get the feeling that's what you're saying here.
Who would police them and enforce what few laws were permitted to exist.? Would there be courts or just summary punishment meted out by sworn officers of the law? This sounds as silly as some ideas floated decades ago about making life better for Americans by giving all the colored people the state of Mississippi and erecting barriers.
Didn't say it was logical or not a bit out there... just his idea. The plan, as he proposed it, was just to warehouse them until they all OD'd. If they chose to straighten up they could work their way back into society.
You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You have to show the weak where to find strength. If you string people out on government assistance, you become the enabler that prevents them from ever emerging out of their poverty. The spirit, just like muscles, atrophies when not exercised. Feeding the body does not feed the spirit; feed the spirit and it will power the body to do momentous things.
Actually you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong–two men–one weak–one strong. Deny the strong man food and you weaken him. Provide the weak man food and you strengthen him. But enough of this semantical nonsense and morning bromides. I am speaking of a class of people who are unable to competefor a variety of reasons. You cannot change that what is in an instant. Some of these people have been in adependent mode since the 18th century and any program devised to universally lift them to be happy andproductive workers in factories or cubicles has, in my opinion, little chance of success.When I got out of college I was part of Johnson's war on poverty and I experienced the phenomenon ofmany people spending lots of fake federal money on ill-thought out programs that were essentially sops tothe Liberals and window dressing for others. In 1965 my wife, a school teacher, got paid 100 dollars a week.By 1968 she worked in a program after school which paid her double her normal rate and even more if she worked summers and Saturdays. Did it do any good? No statistical data supports that conclusion in this small part of the world. When a kid comes to school from a home (sic) with poor food, little parentalinterest in his progress, ill clad and tired and oft times unable to read well enough to comprehend the text,is it surprising that he does poorly. So the question then and the question now is--what to do?Newt suggested orphanages to get them away from their parents and not everybody laughed. So, Wallyhow do we break the circle--I am at a loss?
skiguy:You don't give them any benefits until they straighten themselves out. Federally funded counseling? Yes. Foodstamps, rental assistance, free medical? No. Maybe someday they'll wake up, face reality, and realize that life is not easy. I totally support drug testing for welfare recipients.What about a doctor or lawyer who became a cocaine addict and lost his/her license? Do we "reward" them by saying "Oh, that's OK buddy. So sorry. Here. Even though you screwed up your own life by choosing to do drugs, have some free healthcare, food, etc. It's on the American people."? Or do we let them suffer the consequences of their own actions and choices?Do we equate these drunks and drug addicts with responsible people who have worked hard all their lives and due to the economic downturn, have lost their jobs and legitimately need the assitance? I get the feeling that's what you're saying here.Under your program they will wake up dead! No food, shelter or medical care--we provided that for prisoners of war in Vietnam. These are American citizens we are talking about--perhaps not the best kind of citizens, but citizens nevertheless. Were I an elder in this group, I would instruct the young men to go and rob those who had something as I needed it as much as they did if not more. The fact that this happens already without the benefit of my advice is beside the point.How about drug testing for Congressmen and Presidents? Can we count on your support?
I am speaking of a class of people who are unable to competefor a variety of reasons.
Unable or unwilling? Do you not differentiate between the two?Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can eat for a lifetime. If the government is going to give assistance, I would prefer it be for education (whether vocational or academic), before just settling in on entitlements and other welfare aid.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can eat for a lifetime. If the government is going to give assistance, I would prefer it be for education (whether vocational or academic), before just settling in on entitlements and other welfare aid.
This raises a related question: should the government pay for all food? Should there be government grocery stores where all food is free? Willy, what do you say?If so, I'm eating steak!
Willy, first of all, you really need to learn how to do quoting, because it's very confusing reading your posts.
These are American citizens we are talking about--perhaps not the best kind of citizens, but citizens nevertheless.
And so am I, so why should I have to work (and pay for their drug addiction) while they don't? Yeah, that's really fair...NOT. I might as well become a drug addict then. Everyone here who works, please send me money. I'm too lazy and I'd rather stay up late snorting coke.It's only fair, right willy? After all, I'm an American citizen
As I told Wally, I am at a loss. Everything I can think of has been less successful that touted and in some cases lies were told to justify the experiment and the expenditures. I totally agree that that education or training is the single most effective tool that I can think of, but believe me when I say that in many cases the targetsare so far behind that remedial reading is required--sometimes for years--and this is very expensive.Another huge impediment are culturally induced values. Just as our parents taught us by direction or example that the annual joust with the IRS permitted the taxpayer to stretch the truth and even lie in the preparation of the appropriate documents, so too have our targets been inculcated that in their struggle with THE MAN itis permissible to do almost anything to survive. In my city a recent interview with over 500 youths revealed that most of them looked upon prison as a right of passage on the way to becoming a man and that most hadno real expectation of ever reaching 30. Food stamps are already part of our culture. To discontinue them would invite urban and rural unrest and lead to chaos and riots in the streets. Nothing so annoys a parent is a child crying with hunger pains and there be no food to provide for them. It leads to serious anti-social behavior. In this city private and public "feeding stations" (a horrible phrase since according to my wife it derives from the German words for feeding animals and eating for people--Fressen und Essen-- that provide one good meal for individuals. It is not really enough, but it keeps the lid on.I had steak last night--it was delicious and I did not offer to share it with anyone. What does that make me?
