Free contraception does not create sluts, according to one study

[Perd Hapley]

I am still waiting to hear you explain how 'local control of the schools' as opposed to state or Federal control will solve these problems.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=43487.msg886387#msg886387

Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services,  or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?

And any desire to have this real discussion of this real issue means you are a heartless monster who wants children to starve.  There have been a few occasions where I've been able to tell people about how our as is system simply deepens the poverty pit and dependency; but far more often I get an emotional attack that redirects and re-frames the discussion to my lack of personal experience as a directly corollary to someone else's PERSONAL experience, therefore making any assertions outside of said PERSONAL (Exclusive to one other person on earth) experience, invalid.  Likewise, my inability to get pregnant negates my ability to speak on contraceptives in any manner ect.   

I really hate this notion of needing to parade the most 'authentic' voice of anything in politics.  Most egregious in my opinion is the flying the survivors, anti-gun only, of mass shootings around the country. 

Emotion and PR blackmail to shut down any real discussion of any real issue. 

[Perd Hapley]

We can certainly argue and disagree on the scope, nature or origin of such problems, but to pretend they don't exist, they don't have to be addressed or you can make them go away by 'disagreeing with the premise' is ludicrous. 

When people willfully misrepresent the views of others on this forum, I will ask them to stop lying.

Stop lying.

We have told you how to address it, part of which means allowing some people to die in the street (though probably fewer people than are actually dying in the street today, with this warm and fuzzy government assistance). You insist this is not reasonable, for the laughably ironic reason that "our society won't let that happen." What farce. If our society will not stand by and let people die in the street, then pull govt. out of the way, and let nature take its course. I thank you for demolishing your own point of view.

[MillCreek]

Come on, buddy, don't just copy and paste.  Tell me your ideas to fix these problems!  My experience tells me that there is a percentage of these people who cannot or will not help themselves, there are insufficient private charitable resources to support these people, and in the real world, we cannot tell them to just go off and die, leaving government as the safety net. What can we do to solve the problem?  Do we just accept that there is an irreducible percentage of the poor that will be always be on the government dole, which is my opinion, or are there other answers?  Do you have better or different experience on this?

[MillCreek]

When people willfully misrepresent the views of others on this forum, I will ask them to stop lying.

Stop lying.

We have told you how to address it, part of which means allowing some people to die in the street (though probably fewer people than are actually dying in the street today, with this warm and fuzzy government assistance). You insist this is not reasonable, for the laughably ironic reason that "our society won't let that happen." What farce. If our society will not stand by and let people die in the street, then pull govt. out of the way, and let nature take its course. I thank you for demolishing your own point of view.

Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.  I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.  

[Perd Hapley]

Come on, buddy, don't just copy and paste.  Tell me your ideas to fix these problems!  My experience tells me that there is a percentage of these people who cannot or will not help themselves, there are insufficient private charitable resources to support these people, and in the real world, we cannot tell them to just go off and die, leaving government as the safety net. What can we do to solve the problem?  Do we just accept that there is an irreducible percentage of the poor that will be always be on the government dole, which is my opinion, or are there other answers?  Do you have better or different experience on this?

The copypasta speaks true.

If it helps you, people on govt. assistance are not theoretical to me. I know several of them, mostly through church. I have been to some of their homes. I don't claim that this makes me an expert, but I also reserve the right to have opinions, even more realistic opinions, than those who may have grounds for expert status.

There are insufficient charitable resources because big govt. reduces the prosperity we might otherwise enjoy, while breeding a vastly larger population of poor folk that can't, or won't help themselves. To twist the knife further, our society (that won't stand by and let people die in the street) is perfectly happy to pass minimum wage laws; so we may stand idly by while people can't find work.

Deregulation, lower taxes, and less social welfare spending would begin to solve the problem, but there is no panacea, and no easy way to do this. Society will have to change. We used to be openly racist. But we changed. We used to hide or tolerate child abuse. But we changed. We used to prohibit concealed carry. But we changed. We didn't change enough on any of those issues, but we have seen improvement. There's no reason, no excuse, for not changing our current society into one that promotes hard work, personal responsibility, the importance of the nuclear family, and the many other qualities that will reduce our dependence on government.

You could ask me for more a detailed proposal, but that would be a bit silly. This is an internet forum; not a public policy think tank. If you want to pay me to work full time on proposals for a better world, then let's make a deal. Until then, you get what you paid for. There are plenty of libertarian/conservative scholars that have done the research you're looking for.

[Perd Hapley]

Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.  I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance. 

This is the kind of lying I'm talking about. Nobody said that some people should be "selected" to die. That's some pretty malicious stuff to throw around.

[roo_ster]

Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.  I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.  

In point of fact, these folks would not die due to lack of gov't assistance.  They would die, in the vast majority of cases, from the consequences of their decisions and actions.

Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services,  or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?

Ned has your number, Mr Emotional Blackmail.  

FTR, I have worked for a state housing authority, maintaining "public" housing.  It was very educational, but maybe not in the way you might think or hope for.  I also volunteered time and materials and skills to a ministry dedicated to feeding and helping homeless drunks & addicts.  The sort of place so hard up, they thought MY carpentry skills were pretty good and of value.  Same thing for another ministry in another part of the city.  Similar deal for another with a focus on the aged indigent not long for this plane of existence.  

If I took one thing away from it all, it is this: Taxpayer monies spent by gov't, collected with the threat of violence, and spent on social programs is POISON. It will destroy the recipient and will ensure that the problem grows and spreads to folks who, barring the existence of such gov't largesse, would not otherwise allow themselves to get into similar straights.  In short, such programs are EVIL and spread misery so some folks who can not think beyond the immediate consequences can get a warm and fuzzy feeling...and preen their moral superiority in front of others.  

Lying about what others wrote is not gentleman-like behavior.  It does seem to be SOP these, days, though.  

[Jamisjockey]

Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.  I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.  

It has nothing to do with selecting who will "die".
It has everything to do with buying votes.

[Balog]

When there are incentives to certain behaviors we see more of that behavior. Currently we provide incentives to people who choose not to work, to have lots of childrenoutside of marriage with lots of different people, and to sell drugs. So we see lots of those things among thr subset of thr population susceptible to incentives.

[RoadKingLarry]

Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.  I honestly believe that in the real world of 21st century America, our society is not prepared to select certain populations to die for lack of government assistance.  

Exactly who is doing the selecting? I don't see where "society"would be running around selecting random derelicts off the street to stood against the wall.
What I see would be people self selecting themselves for an early demise by the choices they make. I'm all for giving folks a 2nd or even 3rd go at a hand up but the by the 4th and 5th and nth  time around I get to the point of "screw em".

[Ron]

Big government is perpetuating and creating more of a problem with its inflationary money policy and minimum wages. The two go together, the latter being a response to the former.

It should not surprise us that big government types intuitively understand the poor are big governments responsibility, after all, many are poor due to big government policies. Of course they never actually come to that conclusion; they instead appeal to emotionalism, prescribing more coercive wealth transfers. Not even being aware that coercive wealth transfer is the root of the problem to begin with.

As to the arguments preceding my post. I think MillCreek is just asking for what type of bridge policies should we promote that will get us from having a large dependency class to those same folks realizing that they now must learn to have some responsibility for themselves.

Reign in the credit expansion money policy.

Freeze federal spending at current levels across the board, eliminating the automatic budget increases of baseline budgeting.

Start reigning in corporate and industry subsidies.

Fast track regulatory processes for energy industry expansion.

Lower corporate and individual tax rates dramatically.

Eliminate minimum wage laws

Bring back flop houses (stop zoning them out of existence).

Stop the revolving door of violent offenders getting out of jail and recommitting violent crimes. Punish the repeat violent offenders with very long sentences.

Stop imprisoning drug addicts (unless they commit violence). Mandatory halfway house sentences with drug treatment combined with public service.

Welfare reform that eliminates any incentives for having more children.

Wave all taxes and fees associated with buying a vehicle for those under the poverty level.

There are lists and lists of market based liberty respecting solutions to welfare state problems. Problems of poverty are all interconnected with economic policy. Throwing more government resources at poverty hasn't worked out well looking at levels of dependency these days.  





 

  

[Ned Hamford]

This is the kind of lying I'm talking about. Nobody said that some people should be "selected" to die. That's some pretty malicious stuff to throw around.

Even when it is demonstrably self selected?
I dunno, isn't that what the extremes of intervention come down to?  Through my profession I've met two folks on public assistance who, before hitting 30, have used up enough resources not their own to literally put my entire high school class through college.  I find this extreme desire to keep consequences of bad choices away to be perverse.  There are folks in bad circumstance, even folks who have made a few excusable bad choices, and I refer to neither.  I think of those two and imagine how many others there must be, for whom our government has driven so many of the rest of us into poverty and otherwise robbed opportunity and prosperity, so they may continue to harm the lives of others through their direct actions and resource squandering. 

My own thought is if you take the gov away private charity steps up and does a far more effective job; and if such folks who are called to serve turn you away, as do all others, thems be the breaks. Bad as anyone may be, I don't see the line being drawn at food, shelter, or basic medical care.  Long term care (or medications not administered on site), loans, training programs, care packages; this is where folks get cut off and we are all better for it. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services,  or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?

I've volunteered with local charities.  I've worked through several different churches over the years.  I've worked in professions that placed me into the homes of many people living in poverty.  I lived right at the poverty line myself for a couple of years when first starting out.  I've tried, and mostly failed, to help a few close friends overcome serious life problems.

I know a thing or two about what I'm saying.  Believe it or not, my disagreeing with you is NOT the result of complete ignorance on my part.

My experiences inform my opinions, I've seen what works and what doesn't.  The biggest lesson I've learned is that third parties can't really help people with their personal problems.  People must help themselves.  You can't do it for them.  

What works is people making a serious choice to change their lifestyle* and behavior, and then sticking with it come hell or high water.  This seems to work no matter how big their problems and how great the setbacks along the way.  You can't keep people down once they start making the right choices.  

What doesn't work is just about everything else.  Among the many ineffective solutions, and apropos for this discussion, is throwing huge scads of money at the problem.  You can't spend your way out of this sort of mess.  Lord knows, we've tried.  Without that commitment to change, all the money that we spend will be for naught.

Where does this idea come from that society's problems can be solved simply by spending lots of money?  We know this is ridiculous if applied to our personal lives.  It's practically cliche to say "spending money won't solve your problems".  Yet somehow people think that what doesn't work for us as individuals somehow will work if applied wholesale across the entire country.  

I understand why the politicians peddle this garbage.  They're trying to buy votes, they know the score, they don't actually believe that they're solving problems.  But so many regular folks buy into this stuff.  How can people be so naive?  

FedGov is not in a position to provide effective help for people like this.  FedGov doesn't have the right tools available, doesn't have any core competency in addressing these issues, doesn't have any understanding of these problems, lacks any sense of moral authority for convincing people to change and how.  FedGov is a really, really poor choice for attacking these problems.  The only thing FedGov can really do for social problems is spend other peoples money, and spending money doesn't work.


* Knowing how some folks react poorly to any mention of personal responsibility, I will instead use warm fuzzy euphemisms like "lifestyle" and "choices" and "behavior".  It all means the same thing, but hopefully we can abvoid the baggage some have attached to the basic concept of personal responsibility.

[Tallpine]

I lived right at the poverty line myself for a couple of years when first starting out.

Big difference between being "poor" and just not having much money 

We had years of self employment where getting up to the official poverty line would have been a great improvement 

Old song by Henson Cargill:
My father always taught me when you're broke, son, don't be poor
Never be a quitter but always be a doer

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yup.  I didn't have any money, but I wasn't poor.  I knew that if I took care of business it would only be temporary.  I never felt like it was any real hardship.

[zxcvbob]

Just catching up on this thread...

Big part of the problem is govt taking over the "social safety net" from private charities and foundations, then abusing it to buy votes and/or funnel public funds into the pockets of their cronies.

Self-destructive people, and folks who fall on hard times thru little-or-no fault of their own, are not totally fixable problems -- doesn't matter who is trying to do the fixing.  At least private entities will *try* to fix what they can rather than just exploit the problem for political or personal gain.  If you don't buy the corruption angle, how about the overhead costs?

My proposal is make charitable giving tax deductible even if one doesn't itemize.  Heck, make the first $1000 eligible for a 50% tax credit.

[KD5NRH]

If our society will not stand by and let people die in the street, then pull govt. out of the way, and let nature take its course.

And society would do it in the effective, logical way; by not giving them one damn penny.  Give them a week's food at a time, fill their gas tank, pay their rent/utilities/medical bills directly if you want them to have those things, but don't give them anything they can easily trade for drugs or sell for enough to buy drugs.  (For the record, I figured up my weekly stored food needs a couple weeks ago by the simple expedient of spending a normal week eating from cans.  Grand total to restock a week's worth of chili, canned spaghetti, canned veggies, etc. was about $15. Good luck selling that and getting much crack/meth/whatever.)

[roo_ster]

The biggest lesson I've learned is that third parties can't really help people with their personal problems.  People must help themselves.  You can't do it for them.

Dear Lord in Heaven, THIS.  1000x this.  For both financial / lifestyle issues and interpersonal issues. 

* Knowing how some folks react poorly to any mention of personal responsibility, I will instead use warm fuzzy euphemisms like "lifestyle" and "choices" and "behavior".  It all means the same thing, but hopefully we can abvoid the baggage some have attached to the basic concept of personal responsibility.

The inability to mention personal responsibility without getting flack in response is a sign that the rot is deep, deep into our culture.

[Balog]

If one were to limit things to the truly, inveterately indigent and limit the aid to things like pauper's graves and .gov cheese with no trade value then that's one thing. At some point either the .gov provides some minimal form of assistance or the .gov pays to lock the problem in jail or a sanitorium to keep them from hassling the citizenry. And some forms of assistance can be cheaper than prisons.

But that type of system is so far removed from what we have or what we can realistically achieve in the near future that we may as well speculate on what the anarcho-monarchy that gets established after the Secession would look like.

[roo_ster]

If one were to limit things to the truly, inveterately indigent and limit the aid to things like pauper's graves and .gov cheese with no trade value then that's one thing. At some point either the .gov provides some minimal form of assistance or the .gov pays to lock the problem in jail or a sanitorium to keep them from hassling the citizenry. And some forms of assistance can be cheaper than prisons.

But that type of system is so far removed from what we have or what we can realistically achieve in the near future that we may as well speculate on what the anarcho-monarchy that gets established after the Secession would look like.

Or it could merely be as far away as financial collapse.  When the taxpayers are making so little tax receipts can not cover non-controversial gov't tasks, this sort of decadent spending will stop.

[Balog]

Or it could merely be as far away as financial collapse.  When the taxpayers are making so little tax receipts can not cover non-controversial gov't tasks, this sort of decadent spending will stop.

Do I really need to specify that if our system of government collapses it will change our governmental spending?

[KD5NRH]

But that type of system is so far removed from what we have or what we can realistically achieve in the near future that we may as well speculate on what the anarcho-monarchy that gets established after the Secession would look like.

How about starting with it as a penal system?  Get caught scamming the welfare system in any way whatsoever, and you go on direct minimum rations.  No luxuries, no choices and nothing you can spend; just the basics delivered directly to you in small enough quantities that you're going to have to go hungry for a while before you have enough to sell.  Seven HDRs per person per week or the equivalent in other foods, and a reasonable allowance for rent/utilities also paid directly by the administering agency.  Basic cell phone and plan handled the same way, and either a gas card or bus pass depending on available public transportation and potential work schedule.  (I have far less problem with extending this type of benefit in full to people working low-pay and/or low hour jobs than I do with the current system wasting ridiculously higher amounts on the lazy, while those who do find a crappy part time job are penalized for doing anything for themselves.  Hell, I'd even settle for calling the food an entitlement that Bill Gates can pick up every week if he wants it.  After all, HDRs are supposed to be about 1/5 the cost of MREs, so that would put them around $1.20 each in moderate bulk.  Who knows what that would be at .gov levels of bulk purchase, but I'd bet we could feed every man woman and child in the country for what we currently spend.  Just the ones who wouldn't care enough to go get it would save us a fortune.)

[RocketMan]

Roger your idea KD5NRH, but it will never happen.  Policritters cannot buy votes with a scheme like that.

[Balog]

Roger your idea KD5NRH, but it will never happen.  Policritters cannot buy votes with a scheme like that.

And yet no one asks if having a system that incentivized buying votes is the best choice. Instead we just spread democracy across the globe like settlers with smallpox infested blankets.