Another way to look at this entire issue is to first determine what is deserved by simply being born a citizen in the US.
dyslexia wrote:Another way to look at this entire issue is to first determine what is deserved by simply being born a citizen in the US.
That would be the freedom to make your own choices and to reap the results--good or bad.
interesting scrat, but inconsistent with the past 200 + years of american policy.
I'll give you a sample case, Scrat:
Linda was born deaf into an impoverished Mexican immigrant family in L.A. She went to comically awful schools, one of only a few deaf kids in a mainstream environment, and was passed even though she barely learned to read. She became friends with gang members, got involved with that scene, including drugs, and was pregnant by the time she was 18. By the time she was 23, when I met her, she had 3 kids by 3 different fathers, and no marketable skills.
Her choices, right? Is she innocent or deserving? How do you decide? What happens?
dys
Don't try to reason with Scrat on this. Her mind is made up -- and closed up tight.
Her comment: "That would be the freedom to make your own choices and to reap the results--good or bad" is another example of someone who refuses to see that not all humans are born equal -- and they cannot all compete successfully in an "every person for him/her self."
Chalk it up to the short-sightedness of her side of the coin. Feel pride in the fact that you are over here -- and she is part of a "they."
dyslexia wrote:interesting scrat, but inconsistent with the past 200 + years of american policy.
Only inconsistent with the policies of the left.
(Frank, I'm fairly certain Scrat is a he, btw.)
sozobe wrote:I'll give you a sample case, Scrat:
Linda was born deaf into an impoverished Mexican immigrant family in L.A. She went to comically awful schools, one of only a few deaf kids in a mainstream environment, and was passed even though she barely learned to read. She became friends with gang members, got involved with that scene, including drugs, and was pregnant by the time she was 18. By the time she was 23, when I met her, she had 3 kids by 3 different fathers, and no marketable skills.
Her choices, right? Is she innocent or deserving? How do you decide? What happens?
Sozobe - I think I answered this question. Did you miss it?
scrat, just being curious here, are you saying the "left" is responsible for the entire history of american policy? if so, thats quite an accomplishment.
sozobe wrote:I'll give you a sample case, Scrat:
Linda was born deaf into an impoverished Mexican immigrant family in L.A. She went to comically awful schools, one of only a few deaf kids in a mainstream environment, and was passed even though she barely learned to read. She became friends with gang members, got involved with that scene, including drugs, and was pregnant by the time she was 18. By the time she was 23, when I met her, she had 3 kids by 3 different fathers, and no marketable skills.
Her choices, right? Is she innocent or deserving? How do you decide? What happens?
Her choice? Some? Yeah, some her parents, some the local community.
You make it seem like she had NO choice but to become what she did.
Lesse, she could have learned to read. She could have siad "no." she could have had abortions, she could have sought help throughout the myriad of social programs that exist to help people in her condition, she could have done lots and lots of things differently. Being deaf is a handicap, but not an excuse.
Your implying that EVERY immigrant family is like this. It's not true. I did some work with an immigrant who couldn't speak English and i couldn't speak spanish. His daughter came with us and translated for us. She was 10. His children are going to be ok. He came here with nothing.
Soz- In the example you gave, the girl HAD a rough life. Did ALL the kids on her block get into drugs and have 3 kids by three different fathers, deaf or not? I certainly think not.
I don't care where a person comes from. My grandfather was a seasonal worker, and my grandparents had 7 kids. My grandmother was the janitor in her building in order to get a discount on her apartment. She sold from a pushcart on the weekends, so that her kids could have food on the table, and clothes on their backs.
I am sure that if we asked around, you could find many stories like these right amongst A2Kers. Sometimes it is a matter of the better of two not-so-hot choices, but there is ALWAYS a choice.
In the past, before government got "into the act", religious and private charities took care of the unfortunate in our society. As a result, there was much less of this multi-generational poverty that you see nowadays.
I read somewhere (probably on A2K) that "Welfare should be a safety net, not a hammock". I think that those are very wise words!
dyslexia wrote:scrat, just being curious here, are you saying the "left" is responsible for the entire history of american policy? if so, thats quite an accomplishment.
No, that's not what I am "saying", and I'm quite sure you know that's not what I am "saying". (This "playing dumb" tactic seems to be all the rage today in A2K. Did the liberals have a meeting last night and discuss strategy?)
nah scrat, us liberals are just dumb. thats why you conservatives are always complaining about all the "liberal" university profs.
Mmmmm...truer words were never spoken...
What I am wondering is what you think should have been done, scrat. (And Phoenix, too.) It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you think she is undeserving.
Lemme tell you about Linda.
She was referred to my program by the Department of Rehabilitation. Yep, the gummint. They paid for her to participate in my program. The first 6 months or so were tough -- she was absent a lot, talked back a lot, etc. But she did stick to it. And she made amazing gains. She cut off ties with the gang -- NOT easy, let me tell you. She learned how to type, learned how to file, learned Excel. She learned how to handle three kids and still go to class 6 hours a day. She had her setbacks, but she learned and learned and learned.
And after a year, she had a job. A real job. She didn't make a lot, but she worked hard, and she positively glowed when she told me how proud her kids were. She got them new clothes. She hugged them more, had dinner with them more. She told me, repeatedly, how I'd changed her life. And I always said, "no, YOU changed your life."
A year's worth of tuition from the government gave her the tools for a life's worth of employment, gave her a way out of drugs and gangs, and her kids a way out of being raised in that environment. Pretty good deal all around, I'd say.
But she didn't deserve that chance... right?
dyslexia wrote:nah scrat, us liberals are just dumb. thats why you conservatives are always complaining about all the "liberal" university profs.
Okay, smart guy, let's go back over this exchange...
dyslexia wrote:Another way to look at this entire issue is to first determine what is deserved by simply being born a citizen in the US.
Scrat wrote:That would be the freedom to make your own choices and to reap the results--good or bad.
dyslexia wrote:interesting scrat, but inconsistent with the past 200 + years of american policy.
Scrat wrote:Only inconsistent with the policies of the left.
dyslexia wrote:scrat, just being curious here, are you saying the "left" is responsible for the entire history of american policy? if so, thats quite an accomplishment.
It could not be more clear that in my second comment above I wrote that my first comment was only inconsistent with the policies of the left, and not inconsistent with the totality of US policies going back 200 years, as you ludicrously suggested. Your suggestion that the second comment meant that the left was "responsible for the entire history of american policy" can only be attributed either to stupidity or an intentional misrepresentation of what was written. Based on my experience of you I am inclined to assume you are not stupid. That leaves me with the belief that you are playing dense because you prefer hostility and childish games to fruitful discussion of the topic. (Of course, if I am being too generous in my assessment of your intellect, please correct me.)
sozobe wrote:But she didn't deserve that chance... right?
Wrong.
(Did you ever think that our discussions might be more useful if you came to them with the assumption that you don't know what I think, rather than that you do? Just a thought...)
So... that's why I dislike the idea of some sort of moral criteria before funds or aid are distributed. Forgive me if I erroneously thought statements like:
Quote:Lesse, she could have learned to read. She could have siad "no." she could have had abortions, she could have sought help throughout the myriad of social programs that exist to help people in her condition, she could have done lots and lots of things differently. Being deaf is a handicap, but not an excuse.
meant that you thought she was undeserving of aid or government resources. So let me ask again -- how WOULD you determine that? How would you have any individual or agency determine that?
Whoops! That was McGentrix. My bad. I thought that was you, scrat. Still interested in the answers to my questions, though.
Listen guys, this problem of how to help people in trouble is a really important one and (in my view) neither party has gotten anywhere near getting it right. So I hope we quite the arguing and trying to figure out how to do it. On the left, I think we reserve the right to snipe at those who think no help should be given; on the right, I think there's a legitimate concern about government programs and how they are underwritten and administered. In my view, there is no basis in America for the hands-off, moralistic cr*p I've read in this thread.
My own experience is limited to the National Endowment for the Arts (from which I had a grant and with which an administrative association) and I came away from it believing (contrary to most of my leftleaning beliefs) that the NEA probably should not continue. But there certainly MUST be a social safety net for those in real need. How we define "need" and what it consists of and who oversees the process are questions which need examination.
