Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Ravi]

The traditional family model has changed significantly and will continue to change. America will not be going back to the model up to the 1950s. Thus, let's turn single parents into taxpayers on the front end instead of supporting them on the back end.

But Jake, that would lead people to have sex before marriage! It isn't about helping people, it is about punishing people and controlling them.

"Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical.

 

[JamesMorrison]

The traditional family model has changed significantly and will continue to change. America will not be going back to the model up to the 1950s. Thus, let's turn single parents into taxpayers on the front end instead of supporting them on the back end.

But Jake, that would lead people to have sex before marriage! It isn't about helping people, it is about punishing people and controlling them.

"Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical.

Well, I am sure Jake can speak for himself Ravi, but let's be fair here. Jake is refering to parents that not only have had sex but those children in question. Further, his hope here is to see that those parents are productive members of society. So much so that they can now pay into government coffers rather than help drain them. A side effect of Jake's hope would be gainfully employed people who could successfully provide for their children while proudly holding their heads high as an example for their children who would then be more likely to do the same with their own lives.

Oh, your ""Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical." has no basis in fact...does it?

JM

 

[Foxfyre]

The traditional family model has changed significantly and will continue to change. America will not be going back to the model up to the 1950s. Thus, let's turn single parents into taxpayers on the front end instead of supporting them on the back end.

But Jake, that would lead people to have sex before marriage! It isn't about helping people, it is about punishing people and controlling them.

"Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical.

Well, I am sure Jake can speak for himself Ravi, but let's be fair here. Jake is refering to parents that not only have had sex but those children in question. Further, his hope here is to see that those parents are productive members of society. So much so that they can now pay into government coffers rather than help drain them. A side effect of Jake's hope would be gainfully employed people who could successfully provide for their children while proudly holding their heads high as an example for their children who would then be more likely to do the same with their own lives.

Oh, your ""Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical." has no basis in fact...does it?

JM

Ravi has special moments and is something of a legend here on USMB, James, but I generally let the really silly stuff like that just sorta settle back into the woodwork. Trust me. It's easier that way.

It does illustrate the difficulty in discussing such things though.

If a liberal had spoken up for the traditional family, it would have been applauded by almost all on the left. Or at least they wouldn't have criticized it or accused the member of having some ulterior sinister motive or being a control freak.

But when a conservative proposes something like that, complete with quite a bit of supporting background material to back it up, it seems so often that the liberal can't see what the conservative is saying. Something totally different and unrelated is usually read into it with a strawman following to beat up on.

I attribute it to a form of dyslexia and comprehension deficiency that must be due to the water some drink or something.

Anyhow, the beat goes on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, instead of responding to the points that Ravi accurately defined of mine in this argument, Mrs. Foxfyre demonizes someone she truly does not like. The points are (1) we are not going back to the 1950s traditional family model, and (2) we need to train the folks on welfare to become taxpayers.

 

[Ravi]

But Jake, that would lead people to have sex before marriage! It isn't about helping people, it is about punishing people and controlling them.

"Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical.

Well, I am sure Jake can speak for himself Ravi, but let's be fair here. Jake is refering to parents that not only have had sex but those children in question. Further, his hope here is to see that those parents are productive members of society. So much so that they can now pay into government coffers rather than help drain them. A side effect of Jake's hope would be gainfully employed people who could successfully provide for their children while proudly holding their heads high as an example for their children who would then be more likely to do the same with their own lives.

Oh, your ""Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical." has no basis in fact...does it?

JM

Ravi has special moments and is something of a legend here on USMB, James, but I generally let the really silly stuff like that just sorta settle back into the woodwork. Trust me. It's easier that way.

It does illustrate the difficulty in discussing such things though.

If a liberal had spoken up for the traditional family, it would have been applauded by almost all on the left. Or at least they wouldn't have criticized it or accused the member of having some ulterior sinister motive or being a control freak.

But when a conservative proposes something like that, complete with quite a bit of supporting background material to back it up, it seems so often that the liberal can't see what the conservative is saying. Something totally different and unrelated is usually read into it with a strawman following to beat up on.

I attribute it to a form of dyslexia and comprehension deficiency that must be due to the water some drink or something.

Anyhow, the beat goes on.

Thanks for betraying your middle school mentality...tell everyone who they should "like" and tell everyone what liberals think.

So cool.

 

[Ravi]

The traditional family model has changed significantly and will continue to change. America will not be going back to the model up to the 1950s. Thus, let's turn single parents into taxpayers on the front end instead of supporting them on the back end.

But Jake, that would lead people to have sex before marriage! It isn't about helping people, it is about punishing people and controlling them.

"Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical.

Well, I am sure Jake can speak for himself Ravi, but let's be fair here. Jake is refering to parents that not only have had sex but those children in question. Further, his hope here is to see that those parents are productive members of society. So much so that they can now pay into government coffers rather than help drain them. A side effect of Jake's hope would be gainfully employed people who could successfully provide for their children while proudly holding their heads high as an example for their children who would then be more likely to do the same with their own lives.

Oh, your ""Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical." has no basis in fact...does it?

JM

Yes, I do believe Jake meant exactly what he posted.

And yes, "conservatives" by which I mean the oxymoronic "social conservative" do only care about children in a theoretical sense.

 

[okie]

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

Foxfyre, I was told by another poster on another forum site, that you would welcome my opinion here, so here goes.

Poverty is due to state of mind, more than it is due to outside influences or by government. Poverty cannot be cured by simply giving people money or other things. So it is my opinion that government can only solve problems if it accurately identifies the cause of the problems, and currently I believe the government totally ignores or does not recognize the true causes of poverty. The causes are many, but I think broken homes or single parent homes, unwed mothers, and those types of cultural problems may constitute some of the leading causes of poverty, or at least they are evidence of the factors that cause poverty as well as other cultural problems, such as crime, etc. It is more a spiritual problem as it is an economic problem.

Although government is limited in terms of curing cultural or spiritual problems of the citizenry, it can at least try to reward good citizenship and responsibility, and seek not to reward irresponsibility and bad behavior. This can be done through the welfare system, the tax system, education, and other institutions influenced by the government. It is obvious that poverty cannot be cured overnight, but can be marginally improved or made worse by various government policies.

An example of what I am talking about is our border security or immigration policy. If we reward law breakers, it will only increase the amount of law breaking in terms of illegal immigration into this country, which has increased poverty, I believe. The state of California is a good example of the economic problems of that state, due to its overburdened educational system, health care system, and prison system for examples. Previous administrations sought to cure the situation nationally with amnesty, but long term it only encouraged more illegals that figured some form of amnesty would again be carried out in the future.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

Foxfyre, I was told by another poster on another forum site, that you would welcome my opinion here, so here goes.

Poverty is due to state of mind, more than it is due to outside influences or by government. Poverty cannot be cured by simply giving people money or other things. So it is my opinion that government can only solve problems if it accurately identifies the cause of the problems, and currently I believe the government totally ignores or does not recognize the true causes of poverty. The causes are many, but I think broken homes or single parent homes, unwed mothers, and those types of cultural problems may constitute some of the leading causes of poverty, or at least they are evidence of the factors that cause poverty as well as other cultural problems, such as crime, etc. It is more a spiritual problem as it is an economic problem.

Although government is limited in terms of curing cultural or spiritual problems of the citizenry, it can at least try to reward good citizenship and responsibility, and seek not to reward irresponsibility and bad behavior. This can be done through the welfare system, the tax system, education, and other institutions influenced by the government. It is obvious that poverty cannot be cured overnight, but can be marginally improved or made worse by various government policies.

An example of what I am talking about is our border security or immigration policy. If we reward law breakers, it will only increase the amount of law breaking in terms of illegal immigration into this country, which has increased poverty, I believe. The state of California is a good example of the economic problems of that state, due to its overburdened educational system, health care system, and prison system for examples. Previous administrations sought to cure the situation nationally with amnesty, but long term it only encouraged more illegals that figured some form of amnesty would again be carried out in the future.

Okie? Is that really you? Welcome to USMB. So tickled to see you here. I hope you find enough interesting here to stick around a bit or at least stick your nose in now and then.

You do present a different perspective here and raised a couple of points I don't believe anybody else has. Seeing poverty as a spiritual problem is a new twist for sure and it is an interesting one. I' will be thinking on that a bit.

If you read back just a bit today, you'll see that James and I plus a couple of others have been pointing to the breakdown of the traditional family as one of the primary causes of child poverty, and also have noted that children raised in poverty are more likely to stay in poverty and raise their own children in poverty.

You are of course correct that government can do very little to instill positive values. But I think it can sometimes promote/reward choices that generally produces positive results and discourage that which don't without legislating our choices and options.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I am sure Jake can speak for himself Ravi, but let's be fair here. Jake is refering to parents that not only have had sex but those children in question. Further, his hope here is to see that those parents are productive members of society. So much so that they can now pay into government coffers rather than help drain them. A side effect of Jake's hope would be gainfully employed people who could successfully provide for their children while proudly holding their heads high as an example for their children who would then be more likely to do the same with their own lives.

Oh, your ""Conservatives" always only care about children when the children are theoretical." has no basis in fact...does it?

JM

Ravi has special moments and is something of a legend here on USMB, James, but I generally let the really silly stuff like that just sorta settle back into the woodwork. Trust me. It's easier that way.

It does illustrate the difficulty in discussing such things though.

If a liberal had spoken up for the traditional family, it would have been applauded by almost all on the left. Or at least they wouldn't have criticized it or accused the member of having some ulterior sinister motive or being a control freak.

But when a conservative proposes something like that, complete with quite a bit of supporting background material to back it up, it seems so often that the liberal can't see what the conservative is saying. Something totally different and unrelated is usually read into it with a strawman following to beat up on.

I attribute it to a form of dyslexia and comprehension deficiency that must be due to the water some drink or something.

Anyhow, the beat goes on.

Thanks for betraying your middle school mentality...tell everyone who they should "like" and tell everyone what liberals think.

So cool.

Like you didn't speak for conservatives in your post I rated as 'silly'? When you start making silly statements about conservatives and/or what this or that policy would 'lead to', yeah I'm going to call it silly.

Jake accused me of demonizing you. I went back to see what I wrote and I don't see it, but oh well. I thought I was being pretty nice really after you accused conservatives, which would be me, of some pretty ugly stuff. But if I offended you or Jake, I apologize. I'll just ignore it next time.

Let's try not to derail the thread.

 

[chanel]

This is from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Hardly right wing propoganda.

The Link Between Marriage and Fatherhood

Caring, involved fathers exist outside of marriage. They are more likely, however, to be found in the context of marriage. There are numerous reasons for this, not the least of which being the legal and social norms associated with marriage that connect a father to the family unit. That may also explain, in part, why research consistently shows that the married mother-and-father family is a better environment for raising children than the cohabitating (living together) mother-and-father family.14

It is interesting to note that, contrary to stereotypes about low-income, unmarried parents, a significant majority—more than 8 in 10—of urban, low-income fathers and mothers are in a romantic relationship when their children are born.15 Most of these couples expect that they will get married. One study found that more than 80 percent expected they would get married or live together. However, only 11 percent of these couples had actually married a year later.16 Why they do not marry is an interesting question open to conjecture. However, as Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has pointed out, it may be because these couples receive very little encouragement to marry from the health and social services professionals with whom they come in contact.17

Fathers and Their Impact on Children's Well-Being

 

[editec]

Poverty as a spiritual shortcoming?!

My! isn't that a convenient (for the masters) canard?

Another variant (and not an especially novel one, either... it's been used in this nation now for more than 300 years to justify social injustice) of the BLAME THE VICTIM game

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ravi has special moments and is something of a legend here on USMB, James, but I generally let the really silly stuff like that just sorta settle back into the woodwork. Trust me. It's easier that way.

It does illustrate the difficulty in discussing such things though.

If a liberal had spoken up for the traditional family, it would have been applauded by almost all on the left. Or at least they wouldn't have criticized it or accused the member of having some ulterior sinister motive or being a control freak.

But when a conservative proposes something like that, complete with quite a bit of supporting background material to back it up, it seems so often that the liberal can't see what the conservative is saying. Something totally different and unrelated is usually read into it with a strawman following to beat up on.

I attribute it to a form of dyslexia and comprehension deficiency that must be due to the water some drink or something.

Anyhow, the beat goes on.

Thanks for betraying your middle school mentality...tell everyone who they should "like" and tell everyone what liberals think.

So cool.

Like you didn't speak for conservatives in your post I rated as 'silly'? When you start making silly statements about conservatives and/or what this or that policy would 'lead to', yeah I'm going to call it silly.

Jake accused me of demonizing you. I went back to see what I wrote and I don't see it, but oh well. I thought I was being pretty nice really after you accused conservatives, which would be me, of some pretty ugly stuff. But if I offended you or Jake, I apologize. I'll just ignore it next time.

Let's try not to derail the thread.

Don't apologize to me. You guys get tired of bigreb and me going around and around, I do with you two, or Stephanie and Madeleine.

However, America will not go back to"Father Knows Best" or "Ozzie and Harriett" or "Happy Days" images of America. Our family structures are atomizing, and I expect larger units, such as faith groups, will fill some of that structuring for people and small units.

The taxpayers pays for poverty, so make poverty pay for itself by (1) turning welfare recipients into taxpayers, and (2) making drug free part of the requirement for assistance (the children go to community-based child home programs), and (3) making jobs for project works duties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poverty as a spiritual shortcoming?!

My! isn't that a convenient (for the masters) canard?

Another variant (and not an especially novel one, either... it's been used in this nation now for more than 300 years to justify social injustice) of the BLAME THE VICTIM game

This type of social demonization of the poor is rooted in the reformed Calvinism of our puritans.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Hardly right wing propoganda.

The Link Between Marriage and Fatherhood

Caring, involved fathers exist outside of marriage. They are more likely, however, to be found in the context of marriage. There are numerous reasons for this, not the least of which being the legal and social norms associated with marriage that connect a father to the family unit. That may also explain, in part, why research consistently shows that the married mother-and-father family is a better environment for raising children than the cohabitating (living together) mother-and-father family.14

It is interesting to note that, contrary to stereotypes about low-income, unmarried parents, a significant majority—more than 8 in 10—of urban, low-income fathers and mothers are in a romantic relationship when their children are born.15 Most of these couples expect that they will get married. One study found that more than 80 percent expected they would get married or live together. However, only 11 percent of these couples had actually married a year later.16 Why they do not marry is an interesting question open to conjecture. However, as Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has pointed out, it may be because these couples receive very little encouragement to marry from the health and social services professionals with whom they come in contact.17

Fathers and Their Impact on Children's Well-Being

I think it is all interrelated and, while I really didn't want to get bogged down in JudeoChristian ethics or any other ethical system, I can see that we aren't going to be able to avoid it entirely. Actually that was one of the cornerstones our Founders included in the process of the great experiment that is the United States:

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation,: "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.". . . ."Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." (Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Fisher Ames, Framer of the First Amendment: "Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." (Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Oliver Ellsworth, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court: "The primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion." (Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

I think it is no accident that neighborhoods with lots of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. are generally more peaceful, safe, and stable neighborhoods than those that do not have these. DISCLAIMER: No, I am NOT saying that Atheists or agnostics or other non church attenders are the cause of unsafe, unstable neighborhoods, so please don't even go there. I think generally where you find lots of houses of worship, you find lots of traditional families. So which came first? The 'churches' or the families? Maybe its a chicken/egg kind of thing.

But the fact is that among those declaring that fathers are unnecessary - that almost promote women having kids without benefit of having a husband too - that support single moms but not two parent families - that look at abortion as a routine form of birth control - all such societies seem to be producing a lot of folks living in poverty.

 

[Ravi]

Poverty as a spiritual shortcoming?!

My! isn't that a convenient (for the masters) canard?

Another variant (and not an especially novel one, either... it's been used in this nation now for more than 300 years to justify social injustice) of the BLAME THE VICTIM game

This type of social demonization of the poor is rooted in the reformed Calvinism of our puritans.

I suppose the theory is that if the poor are ashamed of themselves they will become rich.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poverty as a spiritual shortcoming?!

My! isn't that a convenient (for the masters) canard?

Another variant (and not an especially novel one, either... it's been used in this nation now for more than 300 years to justify social injustice) of the BLAME THE VICTIM game

This type of social demonization of the poor is rooted in the reformed Calvinism of our puritans.

I suppose the theory is that if the poor are ashamed of themselves they will become rich.

Or deserve the damnation that will fall upon them after shuffling off this mortal coil.

 

[Foxfyre]

Poverty as a spiritual shortcoming?!

My! isn't that a convenient (for the masters) canard?

Another variant (and not an especially novel one, either... it's been used in this nation now for more than 300 years to justify social injustice) of the BLAME THE VICTIM game

This type of social demonization of the poor is rooted in the reformed Calvinism of our puritans.

I suppose the theory is that if the poor are ashamed of themselves they will become rich.

Not at all. But we go back to a value system where self esteem is lowered when we receive help that is not reciprocated--that IS a moral value--we might get back to people helping themselves more instead of expecting the government to be their mom, dad, and benevolent uncle. And I think we would have far fewer accepting poverty as their lot in life if we reinstated that old traditional value.

The 'new morality' says requiring people to contribute something or owe something for what they receive will hurt their self esteem.

This speaks to what Okie was saying last night about there being an element of morality in the poverty issue, and also what others have suggested as compassionate ways to make poverty less comfortable and therefore lead or drive people out of it.

 

[The T]

This type of social demonization of the poor is rooted in the reformed Calvinism of our puritans.

I suppose the theory is that if the poor are ashamed of themselves they will become rich.

Not at all. But we go back to a value system where self esteem is lowered when we receive help that is not reciprocated--that IS a moral value--we might get back to people helping themselves more instead of expecting the government to be their mom, dad, and benevolent uncle. And I think we would have far fewer accepting poverty as their lot in life if we reinstated that old traditional value.

The 'new morality' says requiring people to contribute something or owe something for what they receive will hurt their self esteem.

This speaks to what Okie was saying last night about there being an element of morality in the poverty issue, and also what others have suggested as compassionate ways to make poverty less comfortable and therefore lead or drive people out of it.

As Ben Franklin so eloquently noted:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think 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, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor; 29 November 1766

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose the theory is that if the poor are ashamed of themselves they will become rich.

Not at all. But we go back to a value system where self esteem is lowered when we receive help that is not reciprocated--that IS a moral value--we might get back to people helping themselves more instead of expecting the government to be their mom, dad, and benevolent uncle. And I think we would have far fewer accepting poverty as their lot in life if we reinstated that old traditional value.

The 'new morality' says requiring people to contribute something or owe something for what they receive will hurt their self esteem.

This speaks to what Okie was saying last night about there being an element of morality in the poverty issue, and also what others have suggested as compassionate ways to make poverty less comfortable and therefore lead or drive people out of it.

As Ben Franklin so eloquently noted:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think 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, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor; 29 November 1766

I used that Ben Franklin quote as a sig line on another board for a long time. And you accurately picked up that it inspired the words I chose for my post.

 

[The T]

Not at all. But we go back to a value system where self esteem is lowered when we receive help that is not reciprocated--that IS a moral value--we might get back to people helping themselves more instead of expecting the government to be their mom, dad, and benevolent uncle. And I think we would have far fewer accepting poverty as their lot in life if we reinstated that old traditional value.

The 'new morality' says requiring people to contribute something or owe something for what they receive will hurt their self esteem.

This speaks to what Okie was saying last night about there being an element of morality in the poverty issue, and also what others have suggested as compassionate ways to make poverty less comfortable and therefore lead or drive people out of it.

As Ben Franklin so eloquently noted:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think 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, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor; 29 November 1766

I used that Ben Franklin quote as a sig line on another board for a long time. And you accurately picked up that it inspired the words I chose for my post.

I did indeed. I knew exacltly what you were alluding to.

If you don't mind? I'll take this oppritunity to restate something I said earlier in this thread, and I think it bears repeating:

The problem lies therin that the Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will. That leads us to where we are now having this discussion.