Choices Matter in Avoiding Poverty

[lee n. field]

Its not easy to borrow a cookbook from the library or download recipes from the internetz, or switch the channel from jerry springer to the food channel to learn how to cook a vegetable or serve a fruit. With all the lack of free time, its much easier to go to McD's than it is to learn even the most basic of skills.

Sloth is something that I suspect can be hard to unlearn.

[Hawkmoon]

The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.

Of course it didn't, Moron. Al Gore invented it. He told us so himself.

[Perd Hapley]

Seems to be part of the problem, along with a lack of other nutrients - its pretty tough to condemn kids for their choices when they've been set up with inadequate hardware :(

Yeah. 'Cause warning people of the consequences of bad choices is condemnation.

Wait, no it's actually called "caring." As opposed to not caring, in which you just give up and tell them they can't do anything to help themselves.

[roo_ster]

True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?  

More realistic than you might think.  For instance...

I have never donated junk food to POBLO (http://www.peopleofthebooklutheranoutreach.org/WP/).  The junkiest was a 50lb bag of brown rice and 2 gallons of olive oil.  Also, POBLO buys real food with the cash they get for that purpose.  I've seen their pantry and delivered same to recipients.

Yeah. 'Cause warning people of the consequences of bad choices is condemnation.

Wait, no it's actually called "caring." As opposed to not caring, in which you just give up and tell them they can't do anything to help themselves.

Would that we had more such "condemnation" and that most charity was delivered by folks who took the stewardship of the funds & goods they disperse to be a moral issue. 

[De Selby]

More realistic than you might think.  For instance...

I have never donated junk food to POBLO (http://www.peopleofthebooklutheranoutreach.org/WP/).  The junkiest was a 50lb bag of brown rice and 2 gallons of olive oil.  Also, POBLO buys real food with the cash they get for that purpose.

And obviously POBLO isn't addressing everyone's eating needs - neither are all other charities combined. 

What evidence is there that charities could pick up the slack fleet from ending government assistance?

[roo_ster]

And obviously POBLO isn't addressing everyone's eating needs - neither are all other charities combined. 

What evidence is there that charities could pick up the slack fleet from ending government assistance?

Because private charity did a pretty decent job of it before gov't shouldered them aside and increased the tax burden to do so.  Also because private charity is much more efficient with its funds and better at discovering the incorrigible.

Reduce the tax burden, remove gov't welfare and this much richer country (than in the 1960s or 1930s) will do a damn fine job of providing for the needy.

[De Selby]

Because private charity did a pretty decent job of it before gov't shouldered them aside and increased the tax burden to do so.  Also because private charity is much more efficient with its funds and better at discovering the incorrigible.

Reduce the tax burden, remove gov't welfare and this much richer country (than in the 1960s or 1930s) will do a damn fine job of providing for the needy.

When was this time that private charity fed the poor to the levels govern,ent achieved later?

Removing the tax burden doesn't ensure that resources will go to feeding people.  If there's some evidence that in this culture, it would, I'd like to see it.

[Perd Hapley]

[Raises hand] Shouldn't we first decide whether government should feed the poor, before we discuss how good of a job they do?

[TommyGunn]

When was this time that private charity fed the poor to the levels govern,ent achieved later?

Is this some sort of criteria by which we choose whether or not it is better to feed poor people through private charity or government largesse?  Do you have suggestions as to where to go to conduct the research necessary to find out?  
Perhaps we should just keep on throwing tax $$$ at the problem, after all we're only approaching 16 trillion dollars in debt, and it's the major entitlements that are driving the debt....since our idiot politicians don't seem to want to do anything about the major spending, one might think they'd atleast want to tackle some of the lesser spending.... except they don't......

Removing the tax burden doesn't ensure that resources will go to feeding people.  If there's some evidence that in this culture, it would, I'd like to see it.

Nothing will "insure" that resources will go to feeding people.
 I've seen too many people using tax dollars to buy expensive foods and, well, junk, to believe it is impossible to believe we can't somehow reform this system if we had the will to.  There may be people who legitimatly need help but they don't need filet mignon.  That should be viewed as stelaing monies that could be better used buying cheaper but equally good food for others.

[De Selby]

[Raises hand] Shouldn't we first decide whether government should feed the poor, before we discuss how good of a job they do?

Eh, whether people will actually keep eating is the first question I ask - the most fair and efficient way of doing that is next.

[roo_ster]

Eh, whether people will actually keep eating is the first question I ask - the most fair and efficient way of doing that is next.

fistful has the order correct, both morally and constitutionally.

[Perd Hapley]

Eh, whether people will actually keep eating is the first question I ask - the most fair and efficient way of doing that is next.

I'm sorry; your answer is incorrect, and has been contributing to poverty in America since at least 1964.

[De Selby]

fistful has the order correct, both morally and constitutionally.

Yes but is there evidence that it actually works?  That was my point.

I'll vote against any system that claims to be moral but results in starvation for millions of people, no matter what anecdotes might be circulated about their sexual or social habits.

[Perd Hapley]

How could limited government be blamed for the starvation of millions of people?

[RoadKingLarry]

Back to the issue of choices...

I have 2 siblings, an older sister and a younger brother.
We were all raised in the same house in a pretty much stereotypical middle class nuclear family.
All of us had essentially the same primary education and more or less the same opportunity for college.
My sister went the college route, after a disastrously abusive marriage to a moron and after coming home after disappearing for a year mom and dad helped her get back on track and into Jr. College, where she continued for the next 14-15 years acquiring a number of assoc. degrees none of which she uses. Of course after getting knocked up and the baby daddy dropping of the face of the earth she was able to get on the welfare ride where she was able to get money from the government as well as mom & dad and continue her life as a perpetual student. She attended a variety of local colleges, tech programs and the last go was Beauty School. All of this funded by a combination of government hand outs and mom's ( the primary enabler)checkbook.
At 52 She now lives in a run down mobile home ( it was nice enough when the folks bought it for her) and makes her living by an assortment of odd jobs, government handouts and part time pot sales.
Her son is a whole chapter on his own which would include drug and alcohol related interaction with the law. Never his fault of course.

My younger brother and I both went Navy, both took technical(electronics) training paths and both wound up with working for the same company by 2000.
Little brother managed to get himself fired for cause and now works grunt labor making air handlers. His path included 2.5 failed marriages and a refusal to even consider additional tech training. Both of his kids are decent with only his son having a minor brush with the law.

I was the bad child, the black sheep likely bound for prison.
I have a solid job, make decent money, been married to the same woman for more than 30 years and own my own home. Both of my kids are on there way to making a decent life for themselves, neither having been in trouble with the law.

 Of the 3 of us kids I'm the only one that's  never seen a jail cell from the inside.
I've made a few bad choices and had some setbacks but worked through them.

3 people with mostly identical opportunity with 3 different outcomes due to the choices we made
How a person's life works out is mostly about the choices they make for themselves. The rest is about how we handle the crap sandwiches life throws at us.  

[MicroBalrog]

When was this time that private charity fed the poor to the levels govern,ent achieved later?

You're assuming we want to be feeding the poor to the levels government has achieved.

[makattak]

Yes but is there evidence that it actually works?  That was my point.

I'll vote against any system that claims to be moral but results in starvation for millions of people, no matter what anecdotes might be circulated about their sexual or social habits.

Moral Hazard. Adverse Selection. Read about these things. I think Wiki probably even has an explanation of how they work.

[seeker_two]

I raised three kids with little help from their father, my family, the gov, etc. Three kids, same home, same rules, etc. Daughter is conservative (mostly), in school on her own dime, and has made intelligent choices. Two sons, neither in school, neither making choices I would prefer they make, but both working and living on their own. So far, no grandkids or marriages or addictions or abuse, or any other serious issues have arisen. Twins are 22, youngest is 20 - and he's struggling and giving me fits right now, but nothing a little "mom" in his face won't fix.

Yeah, it would have been a lot easier if I'd been able to stay married, finish my degree, had a normal family support systems, etc. But I really believe it comes down to the individual. Everyone has choices and how they react to the consequences of those choices is the deciding factor.

MrsSmith is here....all other arguments are invalid.

[Tallpine]

Yes but is there evidence that it actually works?  That was my point.

I'll vote against any system that claims to be moral but results in starvation for millions of people, no matter what anecdotes might be circulated about their sexual or social habits.

Where is your evidence that millions of people were starving in the USA before the Great Society programs began in the 1960s


I've been dirt-poor, financially speaking, but never actually starving.  Beans and potatoes are quite good actually.

[Scout26]

Yes but is there evidence that it actually works?  That was my point.

Did people die of malnutrition prior to .gov intervention.  Yes.  Do they still die of it now.  Yes.

However, famines and widespread malnutrition only occur with the help of .gov's.   Prior to the 30's malnutrition occurred only in isolated circumstances (like on the Oregon Trail  ).  In most civilized and built up areas, people were able to get enough to eat either through their own labors or from neighbors, churches and charities. 

However, it has been shown time and time again that private organizations (Charities and Churches) do a far better job of providing for the "poor" than the .gov. 

[Sawdust]

<snip>
Reduce the tax burden, remove gov't welfare and this much richer country (than in the 1960s or 1930s) will do a damn fine job of providing for the truly needy.

FYP

Sawdust

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

sigh....  sometime i laugh when the childless explain how to raise kids.  other times i wanna choke someone out

[Jamisjockey]

True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?

The state is doing a pretty good job of raising feral youths, obese dependents, gang bangers and drug addicts. Sorry, but assistance really means dependence. 
Do you consider dependence to be compassion?

[RevDisk]

Wait,what?
So are you saying that allof theTV shows that depict a 20-something single mother with an executive level job and a glamorous social life are mostly...fiction?

Meh. The lady that I'm hanging out with is basically that. And carries a Baby Eagle in .40. Yes, she is successful. And has a decent social life. She also works an insane number of hours raising two kids and working as an exec. To the point where it has impacted her health. 

It is entirely possible to be a successful single mother. You need to be lucky, or be willing to work very hard. Not having children makes it easier to achieve higher wealth, but not does guarantee it. 

It is entirely possible to climb out of poverty if you are willing to work hard and make sacrifices. It is not easy. It IS a sacrifice to have books (even ones from a library) shoved under your nose at any free second, soaking up any last piece of useful information. It's a sacrifice to spend all your free time doing what you have to do to succeed, instead of what you want to do. It's a sacrifice to always make the right choices.

[dogmush]

sigh....  sometime i laugh when the childless explain how to raise kids.  other times i wanna choke someone out

While i can see your point, i would point out that 1. Not being able to figure out a condom doesn'f confer deep parental secrets, and 2 i can find plenty of people with children that demenstratably know less about raiseing kids then one can learn just by watching.

Not saying you or your kids(although I think we're all praying someone else teaches your girls to type  ) but there do exist parents that could use the pointers, even from childless folks.