Wednesday, January 21, 2009

What failed liberal social programs create

I have real life experience with the complete failure of govt handouts and programs.
I am a health teacher and we talk about teen pregnancy and the economic struggles it creates.
Here is the answer each and ever time:
No, we have WIC or some other govt program to pay for diapers, food, formula, rent, ect...
We don't have to be responsible. We do not have to get a job and take care of ourselves. We don't even have to stop having a good time because grandma or auntie will watch the baby.

How was that attitude created?
Even though the good hearted liberal wanted to help out poor people get on their feet, in reality they are permanently telling them to sit down and do nothing because the govt will give everything to you.

I know that doesn't help the liberal cause. I understand reality doesn't fit with what feels good or sounds good. The reality of the inner city and its failures is depressing and doesn't seem like it will ever end. The fact is that people are not going to do anything for themselves when they are handed it for free. Its their right to have this given to them. They don't see the need to have any skills. Their very crappy life is the norm and that is that.
Thanks govt handouts!!!

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

All very true. However, I would like to add a few more points. The fact is the inner city and black family structure was more sound and stable (with a mother and father) than white families until President Johnson's "Great Society" programs. These programs (many of which you mention the results of) allowed for the easy destruction of the family without finacial penalty or negative stigmas attached. Big liberal government would take care of them.
The second point, and the most revealing, is that in return for all these "free" government hand-outs, the recipients need to vote for those that want to continue the $ welfare programs (the money train)..ie the Democrats. What is ironic and disgusting is the fact that the stigma for not voting Democrat is worse than not contributing one self by getting off these so-called temporary assistant programs. Buying votes with handouts has been the Democrat playbook since FDR.

This theory of governing is nothing new as it's roots lie in the works of Karl Marx and have dominated most of Europe to a lesser extent under socialism. Control the food, control the healthcare, control or eliminate the guns and you (The government) control the peoples lives.

We can only hope that in 21 months the people of this country will get past the haziness of being scammed by the well spoken words of an empty suit with neo-marxists goals and turn back to the priciples and values of the Founding Fathers and dare I say...Ronald Reagan.

-Rooster Rick

The Game said...

wow, wow, wow...fantastic!!!!

hashfanatic said...

i largely agree with your assessment, and believe that great society programs did largely worsen the existing inner-city cultural disconnect with traditional american mores, i do however disagree with your simplistic, single-minded blame of liberals and the democratic establishment for the existing situation, since bill clinton instituted comprehensive welfare reform, on a size and scope never seen before, or since

in other words, there are segments of liberalism and/or "the left", who actually share your concerns and have remarkably similar ideas about what needs to be done about it, on a governmental level...

iow, it's largely your tone, and relentless politicizing of the issue, that prevents those types from standing in solidarity with you, to spearhead reform, and you are BOTH loathe to stand up in the face of the inevitable race baiting

Marshall Art said...

I believe Clinton merely acted on the work of the Republican Congress at the time. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin was one of the first to get the welfare reform going in his state and it was adopted by the Newt and the gang. One of the policies for which Clinton took credit, but in fact was another in which he simply checked the wind direction and went with the flow. Nice try, though.

hashfanatic said...

well, that's a peculiar idea, given that clinton had actually inherited twelve years of neglect, and failed social policies of the reagan/bush years, where absolutely NOTHING but agitprop and bloviating over welfare fraud had been accomplished

even more notable, is the reality that the democrats in congress during the eighties were significantly to the right, of most that followed them, yet the dlc cabal were decidedly pro-business and not very predisposed to the slacker culture that the emerging neoconservative threat actually fostered, as the flower children became power children, never mind the old trotskyists....

i clearly recall the medicaid mills, the storefronts, the poster boards depicting faux curtains and flowerpots, installed in the windows of burnt-out buildings, to create an ILLUSION of well-being, at a time of relative national prosperity....i also remember very little political will on the part of the republicans, to throw money at law enforcement and reinforcement of welfare fraud, corruption, poverty pimps, etc...
at that point, lowering taxes had become the singular, zombie neocon drumbeat mantra

there were notable exceptions to this trend, i.e. giuliani, but it could be successfully argued that, without a cohesive national policy that gingrich's contract on america failed to achieve, many of the reforms only served to hasten the gentrification of cities like new york, only to transfer the undesirables to depopulated backwaters, like buffalo, where the same corrupt policies essentially recycled themselves, during those years

clinton at least had a comprehensive strategy, whereas gingrich essentially sold tough talk and window dressing, which don't seem to be selling well these days, barky excluded

Anonymous said...

Quit making excuses for why kids in your class don't graduate. Has it ever occurred to you that YOU might be the problem? I don't know you, but reading your little peevish rants that blame everybody else for all the world's ills got me wondering whether there's some sort of disconnect on your end...could it be that you bash liberals and broken education systems as a convenient excuse to mask your own incompetence? Just asking.

American said...

Anon,
Haa ha - That certainly made me smile. I don't think Game is a bad teacher though he does tons of complaining and blaming here! :)
Moroever, I agree that the problems in inner city are real. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with Liberalism. It is entirely due to lack of strong family structure. It has serious impact on one's personality, accountability and goals in life. As I always say, inner city people need better role model and better standards.

The Game said...

lol, there it is...
There are many anon's in this world and that is why things can't change. They are not willing to put responsibility and blame on the correct people.
And guys, I understand republicans suck as well when it comes to social programs, its just that Republicans sort-of finance this stuff, and liberals champion it.

hashfanatic said...

"Anon,
Haa ha - That certainly made me smile. I don't think Game is a bad teacher though he does tons of complaining and blaming here! :)"

agree fully, american

and, Lord knows, it's not a job anyone with game's credentials is gonna do for the money, the professional recognition, or because there aren't any other occupations to work in, one does it because you KNOW, with knowingness, that you ARE making a difference, with at least some, or a few, of the students, against all reason, or measure of easily observable evidence

"It is entirely due to lack of strong family structure..."

i'd have to disagree with the "entirely" part, simply because i've seen cases where mothers let the fathers off the hook in terms of responsibilities, simply because of weaknesses in regulation and oversight of programs...to a point where they maintain separate apartments in the same building, LOL!

recipients need to accept that reform of dysfunctional family structure must come from inside, in order to be lasting and effective, while simultaneously accepting authority from outside in terms of administration of public assistance, for they cannot "self-determine", not with their track record

it's ALL a moral issue, the onus is on them to clean up their own backyards, and crime is the most telling bellwether...until that milestone is reached, compassion and benevolence, mixed with wisdom and discipline, can NEVER enter into the equation, it's a luxury the controllers in this instance no longer have to dispense

hashfanatic said...

"And guys, I understand republicans suck as well when it comes to social programs, its just that Republicans sort-of finance this stuff, and liberals champion it..."

yet, there were several opportunities for bipartisan cooperation in enacting initiatives that would have at least gained control over the situation...why must the perpetual distractions always derail necessary reforms and enforcement, BEFORE we, as a nation, find ourselves behind the eightball, fiscally and culturally?

why are these issues regarded as strictly "racist", when they are simply different levels of the same law enforcement, taxation, and family law aspects we are all subject to?

face it, these problems all existed long before either carter, clinton, and bush ever came on the scene...

Marshall Art said...

You're re-writing history a bit there, Hashboy. I state that Clinton signed on to Republican pushed policy proposals, based on the successes of a particular Republican governor, and you make noise about previous GOP administrations, which didn't do anything to create or deepen the sad state of affairs. Some things, such as personal responsibility shouldn't require government intervention at all. And when a prez leads from that attitude, you wanna say he did nothing to help. Help what? Help people make proper lifestyle choices? Get serious. His tax policies went a long way toward creating an economy more conducive to success for more people (and I believe stats will show it worked) but you want them to throw money at the situation? That's what created it in the first place.

hashfanatic said...

"I state that Clinton signed on to Republican pushed policy proposals, based on the successes of a particular Republican governor, and you make noise about previous GOP administrations, which didn't do anything to create or deepen the sad state of affairs..."

and, i'm saying, you evidently have far too much leisure time on your hand to indulge in controlled, illegal substances, MISTAH wanna-be kleen-n-shine, LOL!

in fact, successive republicans had whined, bitched, and moaned about public assistance programs and deteriorating conditions in the cities, but got nowhere, whereas clinton could, because he wasn't hamstrung by a strictly interpreted states rights ideology, and understood that reform could not be successfully enacted on a state-by-state basis...no one wanted a repeat of southern blacks migrating to northern cities, as they once had two decades earlier for work, this time for the higher benefits and multi-service networks established up north, not to mention a repeat of the us's first major airborne migration, of the puerto ricans, than first arrived in the early fifties, for the same reasons

there was also the matter of that little watergate cloud thingy, lingering about, and the fact that many in what was then still a respectable, legitimate conservative movement in america were very much preoccupied with wealth creation, and network building, throughout the reagan years

"Some things, such as personal responsibility shouldn't require government intervention at all..."

unless you intend to hijack this thread and segue into your usual two favorite crowd-pleasers, reproductive rights, and what them damn queers want this week, i'm afraid i don't see your point as relevant

what we were trying to discuss, were social programs, law enforcement, and taxation, all of which ARE functions of american government

"And when a prez leads from that attitude, you wanna say he did nothing to help..."

marshall? the "prez" is not paid to bloviate, and bloviating is not "leading", the president is paid to ACT

that's where the whole "social programs, law enforcement, and taxation" part of his job description resurfaces

if you want to waste your time trying to turn the farmer's daughter back from a wanton whore
to a snow-white ewe, well, that's your prerogative, as long as you're not the president
:)

"Help people make proper lifestyle choices? Get serious..."

again, more of marshall's stoned logic...you're trying to define the government's proper role in such matters, yet you repeatedly demand the same government intrude in the PERSONAL life choices of others, and have parroted socially "conservative" agendas that would actually hold upwardly mobile ghetto dwellers DOWN, only to reveal that you really don't see government as having any sort of legitimate role, to begin with!

sorry, but even our clueless political class has more sense to get anywhere near your mental trajectory

"His tax policies went a long way toward creating an economy more conducive to success for more people (and I believe stats will show it worked)..."

who?? who on earth are you talking about? which president?

"...but you want them to throw money at the situation?..."

where, marshall? show me ONE place, where i suggested that i "want them to throw money at the situation"??

i honestly believe you don't even recall the subject of the original conversation, you just came over to be a typical neocon pussy PITA..

hashfanatic said...

and game....

in the course of rereading your post, i noticed this again...

"I am a health teacher and we talk about teen pregnancy and the economic struggles it creates.
Here is the answer each and ever time:
No, we have WIC or some other govt program to pay for diapers, food, formula, rent, ect..."

game, you do realize these kids instinctively know what's going to push your buttons, and it's likely they just like to play with you, right?

if you're too transparent about your personal views on these things, and you come off as being overly condescending, they might still like you, but will have NO problem busting your chops with stuff like this...

just checking, maybe even a bit nervously?

The Game said...

no hash, they say that to other teachers as well, I heard two girls say it to another teacher while I was in the room...I didn't even know them...
This is what most of them think...and when I teach I keep a cool head and simply get them to look at multiple sides...they wouldn't even know that it makes me sad to know they look to govt first...I might bring it up as a topic of debate, but I keep a calm head...

hashfanatic said...

yeah, i guess its' typical behavior on their part

i think, some of the difference might be, most of the parents here work, on TOP of receiving all or some benefits...the ridiculous cost of living more or less forces it, even the worst of the losers deal out of their apartments, do sex work on the side, etc., the officials are totally aware of it, but allow it out of a sense of fear and misplaced sympathies

the chinese and, to a lesser extent, spanish-speaking kids will, in total contrast, go to elaborate lengths to conceal that their families receive benefits...also, if there is drug use, gang activity, domestic abuse, etc. at home, they will deny it, much as most "clients" did in the fifties and sixties

i see the ghettos "suburbanizing", as more and more landlords take section 8, and rent out unoccupied houses and two-family units to families on public assistance, while ghettoes like coney island, for example, are gentrified, and the projects are privatized, and converted to market-rate housing

it's a positive development for underutilized beachfront and fringe urban areas, but destabilizes the suburbs, as a result, and causes new challenges for formerly stable school districts...