Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

See, that is why I truly respect your opinion, because of your level-headedness and even temper.

Likewise.

To much is given, much is expected.. And greater the responsibility... It is our duty and obligation to serve those who others may deem less deserving.

Again, I think it's important that we make the distinction between what a man or woman must do to lead a moral life and what a government must do in order to maintain a society.

In no way would I ever suggest that as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., all religions which value charity ever stop expecting a great deal from each other as individuals. From the government though? Do we really want to impose our principles on our fellow man and force him to pay into a bureaucracy which will in turn dole out his money to the lazy, the uneducated, the dirt-stupid, the criminal, etc.?

I'm somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to this aspect of government. The government's job is to protect my life and my liberty and my stuff from my fellow citizens as well as from the government itself (to a point). Beyond that, I believe our government tries to do more than it really ought to.

I anticipate that you're going to raise the issue that by paying in and supporting these people, I'm essentially protecting my life, liberty, etc., by keeping them fed, thus not sparking some sort of insurrection, crime, etc. My response would be that our current system, one might say, is at least partially responsible for the United States having the prestigious distinction of having the highest imprisoned population per capita of any country in the world.

I would also anticipate that you might say that I don't have a cogent argument because poverty is a universal problem -- it affects the rich and the poor and the middle class in some way -- that eliminating it helps us all and keeping it hurts us.

My response to that hypothetical line of thought is that a society such as ours, based on capitalism, is going to generate rich people, middle class people and poor people. If we provide a more comfortable existence to the poor folks, it would seem to me that we would eliminate the incentive to climb the social ladder.

I think poor folks should have it hard. The harder they have it, the greater the incentive is to take charge of their own lives. Able bodied folks should be forced to work at some point. It's as simple as that.

When someone learns that they can get by essentially for an unlimited period of time by doing nothing, they'll do nothing. If they have to work to eat, I assume most will take charge of themselves. That's survival.

I recognize it's not so black and white, but I think I see things in at least fewer shades of grey than you might

So a crackhead mother robbing people at gun point and chooses to smoke crack rather than rehab and get a job and an education, folks would find it easy to cast her aside... But the minute she changes, the very second she says no more, even if it is 70 X 70, even as a civilized society, we cannot refuse her. And believe me there are 1000s like her in every city.

Well, said crackhead mother should have had her children placed in foster care long ago. I would hope permenantly. Also, this woman deserves to be in prison. Society owes her justice and imprisonment.

Also, I'm not sure I'd risk society's love on a person who is such a risk. Were I the one doling out the public money, she'd have to get in line behind the people who are victims of people besides themselves.

Anyhow, I get that you're offering an extreme example.. and I agree that if this woman really wanted help, I think I personally (if it were within my means) would do so. The government though? How do we know that her pleas for help are not merely a ruse to get back onto the Health and Human Services' teet?

Yes, you are right to wean folks off the welfare rolls. But, I don't think we can begin to fathom the public health costs it takes when we do that. We already have a crazy Health disparity in several states and it all aligns with poverty moreso than ethnicity.

Health care is a different issue... but just to give you the very short answer, I do not think that health care is or should be a right in this country. Emergency room visits for things like broken legs? Sure. But the latest and greatest in cancer treatments for the homeless? Unless they're part of an experiment, I don't think so.

And we are not talking about people with all their marbles in place. Many of them are have clinically psychological problems beyond depression or bipolar. A lot of young men have schizophrenia. And a lot of young women are suffering from psychosis. Psychotropic drugs cost money, then you cannot treat with a drug without lifestyle modification and how do you make someone like that make better choices with financial decisions?

There are actually quite a few ways of attacking this. First of all, my "let 'em starve" comment was not directed at the mentally or physically infirm.

Past that, to take your meds or not take your meds is a personal decision. In the case of schizophrenia, I believe you'd be able to get treatment for that via Medicaid since you'd essentially be 100% disabled. Further, if that person is unable to care for themselves and/or are a danger to others, they will be institutionalized.

For less serious conditions like depression or bipolar disorder... there are many, many folks leading highly successful lives who have contended with these sorts of demons. Nothing is impossible unless the patient is bound and determined to be the victim, they can overcome.

And now we have turned this debate is a suitable discussion without all that personal emotions.

I do appreciate that.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, I think it's important that we make the distinction between what a man or woman must do to lead a moral life and what a government must do in order to maintain a society.

Well, in my old age, I have become cynical. My "perceived reality" is our governments aren't interested in maintaining any kind of society to be inclusive of all ladders of it. It will eventually become a dichotomy: the haves and the have nots.

In no way would I ever suggest that as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., all religions which value charity ever stop expecting a great deal from each other as individuals. From the government though? Do we really want to impose our principles on our fellow man and force him to pay into a bureaucracy which will in turn dole out his money to the lazy, the uneducated, the dirt-stupid, the criminal, etc.?

I find that poverty is starts in the mind. Most destituted people are poor in many ways that starts in the mind. Then it transcends into the body and finally in the soul. Most destituted are brokenhearted (part of body) because their minds are less adept (lack of educational opportunities and access), that causes them to despise themselves (no soul or spirit).

My response to that hypothetical line of thought is that a society such as ours, based on capitalism, is going to generate rich people, middle class people and poor people. If we provide a more comfortable existence to the poor folks, it would seem to me that we would eliminate the incentive to climb the social ladder.

I think poor folks should have it hard. The harder they have it, the greater the incentive is to take charge of their own lives. Able bodied folks should be forced to work at some point. It's as simple as that.

It has not been my experience to be so simple. Either-Or thinking never led anyone to climb social ladders. My best example is look at the "gansta rappers". They live in laps of luxury if they become famous, but they can lose their lives over stupidity, which looks like stuff that happens in poverty--that may be an underground sub-culture.

The only time able-bodied folks were forced to work in this country was during enslavement. I guess now, it is during imprisonment. But since simple jobs, i.e. making various license plates, are being outsourced for global "sweat shop" conditions, I guess the capitalistic market conditions are ripe?

When someone learns that they can get by essentially for an unlimited period of time by doing nothing, they'll do nothing. If they have to work to eat, I assume most will take charge of themselves. That's survival.

I recognize it's not so black and white, but I think I see things in at least fewer shades of grey than you might

But we already have beggars on our streets. We call them panhandlers. Right now they are adults. Are you ready to see children? And really, do you think the States are doing a bang up job with children who have to be in foster care? I have an entire case on NPR discussing what is going on with Mississippi's DSHS...

Well, said crackhead mother should have had her children placed in foster care long ago. I would hope permenantly. Also, this woman deserves to be in prison. Society owes her justice and imprisonment.

Also, I'm not sure I'd risk society's love on a person who is such a risk. Were I the one doling out the public money, she'd have to get in line behind the people who are victims of people besides themselves.

Anyhow, I get that you're offering an extreme example.. and I agree that if this woman really wanted help, I think I personally (if it were within my means) would do so. The government though? How do we know that her pleas for help are not merely a ruse to get back onto the Health and Human Services' teet?

Yes, I admit, extreme example.

Folks are all in a tizzy about the harshness of Paris Hilton's sentence and she broke a major law, but fortunately did not hurt anyone including herself.

Health care is a different issue... but just to give you the very short answer, I do not think that health care is or should be a right in this country. Emergency room visits for things like broken legs? Sure. But the latest and greatest in cancer treatments for the homeless? Unless they're part of an experiment, I don't think so.

So public health is different from healthcare. Health care is like you stated, broken bones and cancer treatments. Public health deals with populations, i.e. Giving the the standards of care entities must give when one breaks a bone or is diagnosed with cancer.

Now with poor people, the issue is their poor health started when they were infants. It is not just their parents were never informed for major vaccines to go to school, HAYLE, for some populations, they just don't send their kids to school because the children need vaccinations... if these kids fail to have their full course of vaccines, they risk the illness of infection to other people. And kids get sick all the time, the way illnesses work in them is they often mutate. So that bug cannot be treated with normal antibiotics, like tuberculosis...

And the one thing about kids is they eventually grow up... So now they are adults without appropriate vaccinations OR an education.

Moreover, this issue become more relevant with the complete absence of dental care. A child who does not have dental care with prevention, will inevitably suffer dental disease. If they don't fail to get treated, their teeth rot, if their teeth rot, they don't eat properly. Healthy foods, like apples and carrots are not consumed because it hurts to eat them. Bad foods like fast foods that are soft or better yet, substance abuse which causes appetite suppression are preferably consumed...

Now, with the combination of bad foods and substance abuse has been shown to cause congestive heart failure and cancer in long-time abusers.

Our medical establishment will not make a decision not to treat. Physicians inadvertantly make those choices, but they can risk an entire career if they lack cultural competency towards populations.

This issue is about either having people live a fairly dignfied life or dying like flies as if there was genocide. The US is ill prepared to deal with that on their own soil if it were to happen in this modern day and age. However, the Native Americans may have a different viewpoint.

Past that, to take your meds or not take your meds is a personal decision. In the case of schizophrenia, I believe you'd be able to get treatment for that via Medicaid since you'd essentially be 100% disabled. Further, if that person is unable to care for themselves and/or are a danger to others, they will be institutionalized.

For less serious conditions like depression or bipolar disorder... there are many, many folks leading highly successful lives who have contended with these sorts of demons. Nothing is impossible unless the patient is bound and determined to be the victim, they can overcome.

Yes, from outside, it is a "personal decision". But as an advocate for improved healthcare, if I haven't seen it once, I have seen it a million times, folks DO NOT take their meds properly. There are New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association articles devoted to understanding medication adherence. Even after the physician or nurse practioner tells patients and makes them recite the directives back. Patients lack full understanding of what these meds are suppose to do... Especially psychotropic drugs. And that is a fact about these disease of the mind. The drugs and treatment actually do make one feel better about oneself, but it is a puffed up feeling because this is the nature of side effects and the illness... So the person eventually stops taking the meds and the bad symptoms of his or her mental illness repeats--like a vicious cycle.

As a poor person, how are they going to understand the validity of major mental illnesses and vigilance in these medications? Complex that with a cultural taboo regarding mental illnesses generally. You should hear the crap I hear from the communities I work with...

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

Poverty is a vicious cycle. This is The United States of America, the land of opportunity, where through sheer hard work and determination, people can come from nothing and still achieve the American dream. However, it takes hard, hard, hard work. And I do not believe that success happens in a vaccuum.

There's stories of people coming from poverty, working hard, getting into Harvard or Yale, and becoming a CEO or a lawyer or a doctor. However, I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that every one of them can point to at least one influential person in their lives...mother, father, uncle, aunt, grandparent, teacher, coach, pastor, mentor, etc. Expectations can be powerful things. It's hard to succeed if everyone in your life has low expectations for you and don't think you're going to amount to much. If you are a child and there is absolutely no one in your life encouraging you...if every important person in your life (family, friends, teachers, etc.) all have low expectations for you, you're going to aim low. If the important people in your life have raised and taught you well and expect big things for you, you're going to aim for the stars. My parents expected me to go to college. My teachers expected me to go to college. My friends expected me to go to college. There was never a question or doubt in my mind of whether or not I was going to go to college. Having set high goals for myself and knowing that others had high expectations for me, I felt like I had to guard my future, which meant not getting mixed up with the wrong crowd, not drinking, not smoking, not doing drugs, not cutting school, not becoming a teenage mother, etc. I knew people were counting on me and I didn't want to let them down or let myself down. So I think it's really important for every child to have someone who believes in him/her and for that someone to build up the child until he/she believes in himself/herself.

A good work ethic is essential for success, and I don't believe that people are just born with a good work ethic. It's something that's learned. If a child grows up with negligent, drug-addict parents, who's there to teach that child a good work ethic? Who's there to make sure the child stays focused on succeeding in school and is not tempted astray by the lure of easy money from stealing and drug-dealing? If a child grows up always being told he/she is stupid and worthless, how is that child going to succeed? Yes, in my hypothetical situation, child services should have removed the child long ago and the parents should have been locked up, but it doesn't always happen due to overcrowding in both foster care and prisons. In my hypothetical situation, success requires an adult (teacher, coach, mentor, community leader, church leader, etc.) taking an interest and a responsibility for that child...encouraging the child, building up the child's self-esteem and self-worth, teaching the child hard work and perseverence, teaching the child the value of education, teaching the child to keep his/her eye on the big picture (becoming a docotor or a lawyer or whatever his/her dreams are), making sure the child stays on the straight and narrow (avoiding drugs, alcohol, gangs, teen pregnancy, etc.) and doesn't lose focus on his/her goals, making sure the child knows he/she is worthy of success and higher education, etc.

There definitely needs to be changes made to our current welfare system to prevent abuse. I don't know what the solution is, though. But I'm definitely against completely doing away with social services. The children are the ones that will suffer. I think there needs to be a way to ensure that food stamps are being used to feed children and not being used to feed parents' drug habits. I also think that there needs to be some kind of limitation on the length of time people can be on welfare, so people aren't just on welfare indefinitely if they are physically and mentally able to work. I think the keys to a huge societal change are children and education. If, through mentoring programs and after-school programs, one child goes from poverty to college graduate, then the cycle of poverty can broken for that child's future children and grandchildren.



I'm just realizing how rambly this post has been. Way past my bedtime.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SOPi_Jawbreaker

There's stories of people coming from poverty, working hard, getting into Harvard or Yale, and becoming a CEO or a lawyer or a doctor. However, I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that every one of them can point to at least one influential person in their lives...mother, father, uncle, aunt, grandparent, teacher, coach, pastor, mentor, etc.

Absolutely - and I would also say that for every one success, there are a 100 (or more) unsuccessful people. Add to that list of influences a caring guidance counselor which many schools do not have.

Expectations can be powerful things. It's hard to succeed if everyone in your life has low expectations for you and don't think you're going to amount to much.

Co-sign 100%

A good work ethic is essential for success, and I don't believe that people are just born with a good work ethic. It's something that's learned. If a child grows up with negligent, drug-addict parents, who's there to teach that child a good work ethic? Who's there to make sure the child stays focused on succeeding in school and is not tempted astray by the lure of easy money from stealing and drug-dealing? If a child grows up always being told he/she is stupid and worthless, how is that child going to succeed?

Once again, you speak the truth. The Greeks out there who are making a difference in the lives of children and adults in this situation have taken on a wonderful and challenging task. This is why volunteer mentor programs are vital to changing the face of poverty.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to this aspect of government.

i understand you said somewhat and i'm pretty easy going 'bout most things, but don't bring libertarianism into this. libertarianism is not just warmed over republican beliefs for people who don't want to be bothered by the gov't when it comes to their personal habits. there IS more to it than that.

the libertarian perspective with regard to economics is pretty spelled out. and this perspective is not just 'all about you'.

/end crankiness

- m

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i understand you said somewhat and i'm pretty easy going 'bout most things, but don't bring libertarianism into this. libertarianism is not just warmed over republican beliefs for people who don't want to be bothered by the gov't when it comes to their personal habits. there IS more to it than that.

the libertarian perspective with regard to economics is pretty spelled out. and this perspective is not just 'all about you'.

/end crankiness

- m

I'm aware of what libertarianism is.

Thanks though.

I'm definitely not in agreement with the libertarian economic perspective. Laissez-faire is just not a workable ting, unless, of course, you're a big friend of monopolies and robber barons

[squirrely girl]

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

This is going to be a total hijack, but since I've seen pictures of Pennywise in this thread already, I don't think any further hijack could do any significant harm

"Democrat" and "Republican" to me do not convey any real political meaning. Nor do "conservative" or "liberal." Many times, in the name of politics, individuals who use those terms to self-describe often take up self-contradictory positions. For example, people are against abortion because life is sacred, but they're for capital punishment.

Another example is that liberals tend to be for public health care and other services which benefit the poor while at the same time supporting measures which open our borders wide to illegal immigration which has a very harmful effect on those already in poverty (illegal immigrants taking jobs which would otherwise probably go to the domestic poor).

One side of the Republican party (social conservatives) would have it be illegal to be in a same-sex relationship, adopt children into a same-sex household, forbid abortion under any circumstances, even forbid certain kinds of consensual sex in many cases... another side of the Republican Party (the libertarian wing) would tell the government to keep its nose out of citizens' bedrooms. Contrarian positions from each wing will invariably make it into the party's platform, so at the end of the day, we're left with some "clear" picture (which is anything but clear) as to what a "Republican" is. We redefine this every four years or so.

Democrats do the same thing essentially.

Due to the above sorts of examples, I think it's pretty ambiguous to represent oneself as a "Republican" or a "Democrat." Unaccompanied by other adjectives, I don't think claiming membership to either party tells us much about you. Or do you want to try to tell me that Republican Ron Paul would agree with much fellow Republican Trent Lott would have to say? Or that Barney Frank would agree with much that Dan Boren would have to say?

I think there are more than one types of libertarian out there. There are those (such as myself) who are influenced by libertarianism but haven't adopted it totally. There are others who are card carrying libertarian party members who adopt the party's view as their own.

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

Marissa: I do absolutely hold true to MANY libertarian ideals -- just not all. I consider myself a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

I don't want to be insulting or anything (and this very well may be perceived that way), but in my mind, subscribing 100% to any party agenda is akin to letting someone else think for you.

Since I'm pretty well qualified to do my own thinking, I'm going to fail any political reliability test you put in front of me. As you may have perceived, when it comes to able bodied adults who abuse our welfare system, you'll find me a tad to the right of Atilla the Hun on the political scale... cut off the money, let God sort 'em out... when it comes to impoverished kids, I'm a big pinko commie -- let the state take these kids into custody and spend bazillions of bucks making sure these kids turn out better than their parents.

I view poverty in the long term as America's most important war -- beating, or at least managing poverty is essential to our continued survival and our continued freedom. Throughout history, a wide gap between the poor and the elite (and the lack of a substantial middle class) has always meant social upheaval. As with every war, there are a variety of tactics which can be used... all with differently effective and all with their own political consequences. One thing is for certain though -- if we continue to do what is most politically expedient at this time (i.e., nothing), we'll end up with a much worse problem than we have right now. While this paragraph might look like the preface to some sort of spiel glorifying socialism, it's not.

You might imagine that I think socialism ignores the root of this problem -- that people don't want to work. We have to make them work if they want to eat, have shelter, etc. To me, it's (almost) that simple.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

Do you think of political beliefs as a "take one, take all" situation? For example, I call myself Republican, I'm registered Republican, but there are certain issues where I differ with the party platform.

[James]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.