What do we agree upon?

[MaggieMae]

Stuck in a cycle of poverty you say. how does one get unstuck?

I can name you dozens of examples where people who were born into poverty overcame that obstacle and are now wealthy people. As a matter of fact almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

Fifty of these self-made tycoons are college or high school dropouts. The most famous billionaire dropout is Microsoft's Bill Gates, who finally got his honorary degree from Harvard University in June, 30 years after quitting the prestigious school to sell software. ''I did the best of everyone who failed,'' joked the world's richest man in his official graduation address. With failure like that, who needs success?

Other billionaires, such as media maven Oprah Winfrey, made their fortunes against far greater odds. Born in rural Mississippi, she spent her early years living in poverty on her grandmother's farm. Wanting a way out, she moved to Wisconsin to be with her mother, but was sexually molested by her male relatives. At age 14, she reportedly gave birth to a premature baby who died. Only after moving to Nashville to be with her father did her luck finally start to turn.

Liberals such as yourself Maggie always play the "they were born into it" card and that is a very bigoted and close-minded point of view. As I've shown with the example of Oprah, everyone has the opportunities to overcome poverty, it takes hard work and determination, for you to say that people born poor are not capable of being determined or aquiring a strong work ethic is saying that those people are inferior to those that are born into middle or upper class families. And that is wrong.

I myself was born into poverty, dropped out of school at 15, sent to prison at 17, released at 19 and thankfully was granted a full pardon at 25. A few years after my release I found work with Red Adair and through his kindness and generosity, I was able to forge a career for myself. I bought some land, some of which I've sold at a tremendous profit, raised a family and I've never once asked for any govt. assistance. So I beleive if I can make it and all these now billionaires can make it, then any one can.

Those of your ilk seem to condemn them to a life of poverty, as your statement suggest that those "born into (poverty) " don't " know any other way of life". And that is sad.

You speak of only a few success stories, including your own, out of millions of horror stories. I never mean to imply that those people should not TRY to pull themselves out of poverty; I simply state the facts that there are far too many to just ignore and hope the problem will go away on its own if they just straightened out. How we deal with those millions is THE PROBLEM, not the fact that they are individually, as human beings, fully capable of achieving loftier goals if given the opportunity. And if you re-read what I said, I didn't once mention "government assistance." Success stories in inner-city ghettos often result from community action, a whole lot of volunteer effort, and allocation of LOCAL funds to support basic educational tools necessary for very poor people to have better lives.

The problem is thinking you can eradicate poverty, it will never happen. There is always going to be those people that just don't want to put forth the effort it takes to get an education, get a job and lead productive lives. The only possible way to minimize the numbers of people living in poverty is to try and break the cycle with the newest generation and it has to start in the schools.

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Believe what you want, but statistics show that the kind of slackers you describe are minimal. Most people who receive food stamps (a huge increase in middle-class families now needing them in just the last year) and most families with children using other government programs are indeed needy. Since you've never applied for government assistance, you have no idea the rigmarole a person is put through BEFORE they are approved--even for food stamps. (And in order to further eliminate abuse of those, they are no longer "stamps" that can be traded for cash for cigarettes or booze, but a magnetic card that when swiped cannot be misused for any unauthorized purchase.)

To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.

And btw, I am NOT a "liberal." Nancy Pelosi is a "liberal" and I think she should be sent packing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.

And I cannot forget that it was in the 1960s when black people were denied entry into many public colleges and universities and the opportunities for black people to succeed economically in America were severly limited.

I can understand how people who grew up under those conditions do not necessarily instill a good work ethic in their children. Why should they bust their hump when "whitey" is only going to let you get so far before they slam the door in your face.

I believe that we have come very close to elimenating those systemic inequities, but it still takes a generation or two before all children are raised with the conviction that the only limit placed on their opportunities to achieve is their willingness to work for it.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can name several hundred exaples of people who have climbed Mt. Everest - that doesn't mean it is reasonable to expect EVERYONE to be able to do it.

Why can't everyone do it? If they're physically fit, they work hard and remain determined why couldn't they climb Mt. Everest?

Lonestar, we have gotten off on the wrong foot (imho) on these boards and I will accept my share of the blame for that. If I agree to disagree with you respectfully (but sometimes ardently) will you make the same effort?

As to the "why can't everyone do it" question you ask of my Mt. Everest analogy, I would have to respond that some people are just not equipped to climb Mt. Everest no matter how hard they try. Maybe they've had a leg amputated or they have some other physical limitation that prevents them from doing it.

That same principle applies (imho) to many people who are trying to climb social and economic mountains. I believe that there are many contributing factors that make achieveing these goals unrealistic or impossible for some. I'll acknowledge that pure and simple laziness is a contributing factor for some, but I think we have to recognize that sometimes laziness is NOT the issue.

And for these folks - the ones who are willing to do the work but who need a higher level of support - well .... it's THEIR government too and I see absolutely no problem when we, as a society, decide that we want to help them with a higher level of support.

It's a matter of degrees. Personally, I like to teach a guy to fish rather than just giving him a few fish every day. But I cannot advocate "every man for himself." My opinion is that when mankind becomes nothing more than sharks with legs, then maybe we don't deserve the blessings we have been given.

You are soooooo right. I used to do volunteer work at a local used clothing store sorting out the junk from the wearable that people would drop off. Sometimes there would be huge bags left outside with truly wonderful pieces of women's clothing, obviously dropped off by professional women. We decided to change tactics and rather than just have this place be a messy free-for-all shopping stop for poor people looking for something warm, not pretty, to make it into a "dress for success" store. We spent hours hand washing and ironing silk blouses, pressing wrinkles out of wool jackets and skirts and polishing up high heels. In coordination with the local 'welfare' office, it was absolutely incredible the number of women who in the past would not enthusiastically look for a good job because they had nothing to wear, but now they had this great store where they could at least get an outfit they could alter. I haven't worked there in about five years, but I understand they have expanded and now charge for some things, which ALSO lifts the self-esteem of people when they can actually pay for what is a "luxury" to many of them.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh and Maggie - I also agree with you in that I think Democrats are being ill served by Nancy Pelosi - but since I'm not a Democrat and since I don't live in her district, I REALLY don't have a dog in THAT fight.

I think she often seems so very mean-spirited and I think that hurts even worse than her far-left convictions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

While I completely agree that these programs are the most abused in the country, unlike yourself, I do have a heart and know that there truly are people in our country who rely on them. Shamefully, many of our Veterans do. To shut these people out because our government is too big to properly control the program is, IMHO, simply wrong.

I think, as Maggie pointed out, community action groups would do a much greater job at helping out those in need without relying on the govt,. The constitution says something about promoting the welfare of the general public and I think people have confused promoting with providing. It is not the govt.'s job to provide food, clothing. housing or anything else of that sort to its citizens. I think the reason for generational poverty is primarily due to welfare programs that does more to enable folks to simply kick back and wait for that monthly check instead of going out and getting a job. With that said , I do believe there are some legitimate folks that do need a hand up, but those people should rely on their community not their govt. to help them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I can name several hundred exaples of people who have climbed Mt. Everest - that doesn't mean it is reasonable to expect EVERYONE to be able to do it.

Why can't everyone do it? If they're physically fit, they work hard and remain determined why couldn't they climb Mt. Everest?

Lonestar, we have gotten off on the wrong foot (imho) on these boards and I will accept my share of the blame for that. If I agree to disagree with you respectfully (but sometimes ardently) will you make the same effort?

As to the "why can't everyone do it" question you ask of my Mt. Everest analogy, I would have to respond that some people are just not equipped to climb Mt. Everest no matter how hard they try. Maybe they've had a leg amputated or they have some other physical limitation that prevents them from doing it.

That same principle applies (imho) to many people who are trying to climb social and economic mountains. I believe that there are many contributing factors that make achieveing these goals unrealistic or impossible for some. I'll acknowledge that pure and simple laziness is a contributing factor for some, but I think we have to recognize that sometimes laziness is NOT the issue.

And for these folks - the ones who are willing to do the work but who need a higher level of support - well .... it's THEIR government too and I see absolutely no problem when we, as a society, decide that we want to help them with a higher level of support.

It's a matter of degrees. Personally, I like to teach a guy to fish rather than just giving him a few fish every day. But I cannot advocate "every man for himself." My opinion is that when mankind becomes nothing more than sharks with legs, then maybe we don't deserve the blessings we have been given.

Sure I can agree to disagree, seems I do more of that than I do agreeing to agree.

I think you missed my point, I said anyone that has the determination and is willing to work hard can achieve anything they set out to do. Even a man with an amputated leg or a blind man can climb Mt. Everest if they are determined to do it.

Double Amputee Climbs Mt. Everest | The Home-Based Business Blog

Erik Weihenmayer: Blind Adventurer, Motivational Speaker, Author, Educator

The same with social and economical skills, with hard work and determination anyone can succeed in business and life in general.You are always going ot have the lazy folks and those that make the wrong choices, but that' snot the point, The point is anything is possible when one is determined.

In my opinion the govt's. job is not to provide for you. If a man needs hand up, then he should rely on his community to give him the support he needs, this way it puts a human face to the ones giving the support and not just a monthly check in the mailbox.

 

[Immanuel]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.

One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.

Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.

Immie

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think you missed my point, I said anyone that has the determination and is willing to work hard can achieve anything they set out to do. Even a man with an amputated leg or a blind man can climb Mt. Everest if they are determined to do it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

Just because some people are capable of superhuman feats doesn't mean we can resonably expect EVERYONE to duplicate them. And just because our own path has been easier, (or harder) I think it is wrong to assume that everyone shares the same degree of difficulty.

If there are 200 million Americans, then there are 200 million different paths. One-size-fits-all government is not good government and it's not responsive government in my opinion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.

One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.

Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.

Immie

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what services are really out there and what services are not - and about the duration of benefits.

I blame politicians and spin hacks who are more interested in inciting than in leading or informing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You speak of only a few success stories, including your own, out of millions of horror stories. I never mean to imply that those people should not TRY to pull themselves out of poverty; I simply state the facts that there are far too many to just ignore and hope the problem will go away on its own if they just straightened out. How we deal with those millions is THE PROBLEM, not the fact that they are individually, as human beings, fully capable of achieving loftier goals if given the opportunity. And if you re-read what I said, I didn't once mention "government assistance." Success stories in inner-city ghettos often result from community action, a whole lot of volunteer effort, and allocation of LOCAL funds to support basic educational tools necessary for very poor people to have better lives.

The problem is thinking you can eradicate poverty, it will never happen. There is always going to be those people that just don't want to put forth the effort it takes to get an education, get a job and lead productive lives. The only possible way to minimize the numbers of people living in poverty is to try and break the cycle with the newest generation and it has to start in the schools.

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Believe what you want, but statistics show that the kind of slackers you describe are minimal. Most people who receive food stamps (a huge increase in middle-class families now needing them in just the last year) and most families with children using other government programs are indeed needy. Since you've never applied for government assistance, you have no idea the rigmarole a person is put through BEFORE they are approved--even for food stamps. (And in order to further eliminate abuse of those, they are no longer "stamps" that can be traded for cash for cigarettes or booze, but a magnetic card that when swiped cannot be misused for any unauthorized purchase.)

To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.

And btw, I am NOT a "liberal." Nancy Pelosi is a "liberal" and I think she should be sent packing.

In my opinion you are left of center(maybe not as far on the left as Pelosi) and that would make you a liberal in my book. But I digress, and I would like to see your source for the information you provided. Also you say that those in the system truly are in need? Well I beg to differ. When I see people using food stamps (or in some cases magnetic cards but cards, stamps or whatever it's still welfare) then driving away in a better car than most middle income folks can afford it gives me reason to pause. And then when I see help wanted signs in every fast food joint in town, I wonder why are these people on welfare when there is jobs to be had. The logical and resonable answer is these people do not want to work, it is far easier to let the govt. hand them a check or add money to their govt. issued credit card. Explain to me why any person on welfare would continually bear children? No one has yet been able to answer that question, but perhaps you can.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.

One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.

Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.

Immie

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times. You show me anywhere in the constitution that states the govt. will provide for you when you fall on hard times.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times.

And my position is that it is a legitimate role of government. And I don't believe the constitution forbids it. So if the constitution does not forbid it and the majority of voters want to do it, then I think it is a legitimate function of Government.

In fact, I'd rather see us spend our money this way than .... well ..... I'll just say I believe we spend a lot of money on things I personally find a lot less worthy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think you missed my point, I said anyone that has the determination and is willing to work hard can achieve anything they set out to do. Even a man with an amputated leg or a blind man can climb Mt. Everest if they are determined to do it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

Just because some people are capable of superhuman feats doesn't mean we can resonably expect EVERYONE to duplicate them. And just because our own path has been easier, (or harder) I think it is wrong to assume that everyone shares the same degree of difficulty.

If there are 200 million Americans, then there are 200 million different paths. One-size-fits-all government is not good government and it's not responsive government in my opinion.

It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.

I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.

There is no reason why every able bodied American cannot lead a successful and prosperous life if their determined to do so. Yes there will always be those idiots that are lazy or chooses a life crime or becomes addicted to alcohol and/or drugs but those along with the mentally and physically deficient people are the exceptions.

I don't want a one size fits all govt., I want a smaller less intrusive govt.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times.

And my position is that it is a legitimate role of government. And I don't believe the constitution forbids it. So if the constitution does not forbid it and the majority of voters want to do it, then I think it is a legitimate function of Government.

In fact, I'd rather see us spend our money this way than .... well ..... I'll just say I believe we spend a lot of money on things I personally find a lot less worthy.

If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.

Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.

I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.

But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

 

[VaYank5150]

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

Isn't "In God We Trust" in there somewhere?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

Isn't "In God We Trust" in there somewhere?

are you just TRYING to pick a fight

 

[VaYank5150]

are you just TRYING to pick a fight

I just find it ironic how some individuals will use parts of our founding fathers' belief system(s) to their benefit, yet completely ignore other parts of those belief systems when they don't support their argument.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.

Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.

I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.

But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.

You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have when the govt. takes their taxes and gives it to poor people most of which are able bodied Americans. I'm not agains thelping people, I'm against govt. interference and intrusion. Every community can take care of it's own when folks are hit by hard times, it is not the govt.'s. job.

You said an amputee wouldn't be able to climb Mt Everest because of phyical limitations. I proved you wrong and that's that. Get over it already! I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it. Naturally not everyone is determined to climb a silly mountain, me included. You are only limited by your imagination and determination.