Quote:
Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
Soror, its obvious that your heart is in the right place, but that is the "liberal" conundrum. Because we feel others pain, we have a tendency to absolve them of their role in their failure. We allow them to continue to abuse our funds and trust because they know our heart is to big to allow them to suffer at their own hands. We all know women and mothers who let some no good man live off of her while she works, pays the rent and car note. Why, because their heart rules their head. The same with liberal social programs. We won't let people starve, go homeless, or uneducated, no matter what their part is in creating their situation. There is a law in business known as "perverse incentives". That is where the rules create the opposite effect of their intent. Women should not be rewarded for having multiple children out of wedlock, given preferential housing, food stamps, and free healthcare. By doing so, the law creates a dis-incentive to behave responsibly because there is no tangible downside to being irresposible since your "mistakes" will be rewarded. Kimmie, you decry "moralizing", but what good is instruction without a moral component. Without a sense of shame or delayed gratification (which is what morality imparts). Morality is an inherent component of responsibilty. Telling 13yr olds that it is okay to have sex as long as you use a condom is not teaching responsibilty because it lacks a moral component. We must do more than reduce disease and pregnancy for what ails our communities. We have lost our moral compass, that sense of "doing right". Instead we have descended into moral equivelency, amorality, and secular humanism.
The biggest problem with social programs is that there is no parallell impetus for personal self-improvement, character development or a sense that the recipient must earn the assistance other than just being in the condition of need. We can no longer administer these programs as they were done one or two generations ago. Everything that effects our communities must be re-thought.
|
I absolutely agree with that assessment, Doggystyle. I do think that there are people who should be allowed to fail at their own hands without a safety net or a rescue. At the same time, unless we are ready to create true ghettos separating the haves and have nots by gates and walls, there is a self interest in keeping the gap between the haves and have nots to a certain level. While there are many social constructs that differ between the US and other countries around the world, I do think the ability to keep the numbers of the poorest of the poor under control or appeased has been the key factor in preventing a civil war in this country. If you look throughout history, the impetus for many instances of civil unrest has been poverty. I think there are many reasons to have social programs other than it makes me warm and fuzzy inside and I do think there is a way to infuse a program with incentives to work and improve a situation.
Second, I think looking out for the children who are victimized by these situations is different than looking out for the parents. I know that in some ways that lets the parents off the hook but I am not convinced that by letting these children suffer with no hope it is inspiring the parents to better behavior. As the number of children in these circumstances grows, you are left again in a situation when all of society is likely to feel the repercussions. I think that is something to consider as decisions about programs are made. I also believe that programs that take a more holistic approach may be warranted provided they teach people how to do better, see a different reality and require that the put in substantial effort of their own.
Our welfare system I terribly flawed. I agree with Reki that it should be a temporary help not a life style. I think that Black pop culture glamorizes it far too much ( I mean we have a song out there called it’s the first of the month for heaven’s sake) but I think that much of the flaws that exist were intentionally created and have succeeded in doing exactly what they were supposed to do to certain communities.