Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013
The political left has long claimed the role of protector of "the poor." It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?
Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are "the poor"?
If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about "the poor" that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending.
Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money.
[Excerpt]
Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-mindset-of-the-left-part-ii.html
If a person now getting gov't assistance can get a job making $10,000 or more and lose their $15,000 gov't assistance, do you think they'd accept the employment?
Studies show that the Progressive agenda promotes envy and a sense of grievance, making further demands for "rights" to what others work hard to produce. The progressive agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty, but produces more poverty and produced more power and self-aggrandizement.
By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013
The political left has long claimed the role of protector of "the poor." It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?
Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are "the poor"?
If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about "the poor" that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending.
Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money.
[Excerpt]
Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-mindset-of-the-left-part-ii.html
If a person now getting gov't assistance can get a job making $10,000 or more and lose their $15,000 gov't assistance, do you think they'd accept the employment?
Studies show that the Progressive agenda promotes envy and a sense of grievance, making further demands for "rights" to what others work hard to produce. The progressive agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty, but produces more poverty and produced more power and self-aggrandizement.
--------------------By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013
[/B][/I]
Conservatives to America: "Poverty doesn't exist. Nothing is happening here people."
Delusional thinking is currently the sine qua non of conservatism.
So, helping the poor hurts them. Feel good nonsense for the "it's all about me" Right Wingnuts. What a crock of crap.
So, helping the poor hurts them. Feel good nonsense for the "it's all about me" Right Wingnuts. What a crock of crap.
Helping them remain poor? WTF? Providing assistance does not help someone remain poor. People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.Helping people remain poor is not really a good policy even though it may make you feel good.
America's War On Poverty Has Been A Failure, But The Government Won't Stop Spending - Investors.comHelping them remain poor? WTF? Providing assistance does not help someone remain poor. People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.
Do R Wingers ever listen to the stuff they say?
the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it - Benjamin Franklin
Personally I think he had the right idea. I pulled myself up from my bootstraps without the help of Welfare or any gov't help. Why can't others
Yes, yes. I want them for FOOD. Seriously, if we can offer a vibrant and growing economy with plenty of jobs, even the menial ones for some, we can help them help themselves out of poverty. Poverty will never be eliminated. We can help, and we must, but the power to avoid starvation, homelessness and the like rightfully should rest with the individual first. There must be a desire to improve and a clear path. Right now I see neither.People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.
Would you rather we let them starve and die on the streets?
Biggest problem I see is incompetent parents raising kids who end up a bigger mess then the already messed up parents. Add to that the fact that most of these "at risk" children are being raised in single-parent households, and you can easily see the problem growing exponentially.Yes, yes. I want them for FOOD. Seriously, if we can offer a vibrant and growing economy with plenty of jobs, even the menial ones for some, we can help them help themselves out of poverty. Poverty will never be eliminated. We can help, and we must, but the power to avoid starvation, homelessness and the like rightfully should rest with the individual first. There must be a desire to improve and a clear path. Right now I see neither.
I'm not for the state assuming parental responsibilities. I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father. My point in this is that a dynamic and growing economy is the first concrete step to be taken. The cost of the war on poverty in total exceeds our current annual GDP, and poverty is a mere few percentage points below what it was when the war was started. That's not victory. That's a bad joke - not only on those who are poor, but also on those who have paid for the effort. The economics is far easier to treat than the social problems, which will require generations now to repair.Biggest problem I see is incompetent parents raising kids who end up a bigger mess then the already messed up parents. Add to that the fact that most of these "at risk" children are being raised in single-parent households, and you can easily see the problem growing exponentially.
To solve poverty, we would have to yank "at risk" kids away from any and all terrible parents. However, pulling kids away from Mama is not exactly the American way.
That's just platitudes. "I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father."I'm not for the state assuming parental responsibilities. I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father. My point in this is that a dynamic and growing economy is the first concrete step to be taken. The cost of the war on poverty in total exceeds our current annual GDP, and poverty is a mere few percentage points below what it was when the war was started. That's not victory. That's a bad joke - not only on those who are poor, but also on those who have paid for the effort. The economics is far easier to treat than the social problems, which will require generations now to repair.
It's a bit more than platypuses, because if we don't encourage responsible parenting and enforce it when necessary, then we're stuck with the reality you claim - and you readily admit the superiority of just such a process in your final sentence. So, WTF? indeed. You're just looking for yet another easy way out of a problem you already know the solution to, while crying "it's just tooooo hard to do it the right way". Crap, even the inimitable Obama endorses parental responsibility - won't do much about it, but endorses it just the same.That's just platitudes. "I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father."
WTF?
Other than those words sounding good, they are worthless. It's obviously not reality. Thus, it's not a workable solution. If parents assumed responsibility when they had children--both mother and father---we would not be in this mess.
It's a bit more than platypuses, because if we don't encourage responsible parenting and enforce it when necessary, then we're stuck with the reality you claim - and you readily admit the superiority of just such a process in your final sentence. So, WTF? indeed. You're just looking for yet another easy way out of a problem you already know the solution to, while crying "it's just tooooo hard to do it the right way". Crap, even the inimitable Obama endorses parental responsibility - won't do much about it, but endorses it just the same.
using strawmen to attack conservatives is your SOP
I'm not for the state assuming parental responsibilities. I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father. My point in this is that a dynamic and growing economy is the first concrete step to be taken. The cost of the war on poverty in total exceeds our current annual GDP, and poverty is a mere few percentage points below what it was when the war was started. That's not victory. That's a bad joke - not only on those who are poor, but also on those who have paid for the effort. The economics is far easier to treat than the social problems, which will require generations now to repair.
Translated: if parents are irresponsible or poor, you're for letting their children suffer.
This is part of the punitive nature of the conservative personality. In the end, conservatives always want to blame somebody and make sure somebody suffers (except Bush of course -- you're not allowed to hold conservatives responsible for their failed policies)
So how much of your wealth do you share with the poor? Or are you always only on the receiving end?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?