Why Is Self-Reliance Frowned Upon?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 26, 2011 22:48:04 GMT -5 Shirina said:

People like me who favor NO welfare wouldn't have to worry about who gets what. It would be EQUAL- you'd all get nothing.

I would advise you to do some research on the French Revolution and, as an added extra credit option, also look up Robespierre. A nation that snubs its poor does so at its own peril. I needn't remind you of the chaos and turmoil that has assailed every nation which failed to keep the poor from falling below a certain point.

No matter how some folks like to hide behind pretty phrases such as "self-reliance," intelligent people aren't in the least bit fooled. What it really comes down to is naked avarice. That's right, it's all about greed. While some better-off folks might pat themselves on the backs for allowing a few table scraps to fall to the dog beneath (otherwise known as "charity"), this does not diminish the rampant selfishness that is endemic in our society.

That selfishness is exemplified very well in some of the viewpoints found in this rather distasteful thread. To think that we have fallen so far as to disparage victims of natural disasters is quite disturbing. In fact, it borders on flagrant sociopathy. Only in recent years have I heard the banshee wail of conservatives whining about spending tax dollars to help our fellow Americans who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to a disaster. People like that cause no small amount of embarrassment at even being called an American. Those wailing banshees should think twice before insulting this nation by flying an American flag this Memorial Day, or any other day, for such people are not Americans. They are Me-icans. Their only allegiance is to themselves. They just happen to live here.

On a more practical note, the issue of people building their own levees is patently ridiculous. The government has the resources to build much longer levees to save entire towns, not individual homes. It does little good to save your house but lose your livelihood when you find your business and your farmland is under 5 feet of water. Should everyone build a levee around the entire periphery of their farms, too? Should small business owners build levees around their stores and factories? Perhaps I'm wrong, but crumpled asphalt does not make a good levee, and that is about all you'd have to work with in a downtown area.

And this does not even factor in the destroyed or damaged infrastructure. Washed out bridges and roads, destroyed schools and libraries, inundated police cars and snowplows and DoT machinery, flooded sewer lines, saturated underground cables, and a plethora of other things that will have to be repaired or replaced.

This nonsense about government reliance is just that - nonsense. The problem is that the government doesn't have the money to build the levees necessary to keep the floodwaters at bay. Do you know why? It's because greedy people like some of you here would have a conniption if your local or state politician wanted to raise taxes to fund levee construction. You would call it an "earmark" and demand it be squashed from existence. These politicians know that raising taxes, no matter the reason, is tantamount to political suicide. Thus the existing levees continue to weaken, erode, and fail.

The cost of building a good, solid levee is far less than having to repeatedly rebuild and clean up entire regions after the floodwaters recede, but there are too many short-sighted, narrow-minded bean counters in our society who would rather deal with bigger consequences later than make a smaller sacrifice now. For those whining about this issue, you have no one but yourselves to blame.

In terms of people living in a flood zone, this is preposterous. Should we let enormous swathes of America lie fallow and empty because a disaster might strike?

Or perhaps, more to the point, should Joplin, Oklahoma City, and every village, town, and city prone to tornadoes be abandoned? In fact, why not evacuate everyone out of Tornado Alley from Texas to North Dakota because it is a disaster prone area? We could send them west, but the entire area from Los Angeles to Seattle would also have to be evacuated because of the dangers of earthquakes. To be extra safe, the coastlines should be abandoned due to the tsunami threat. Hmm, but where to send everyone?

Well, certainly not eastern Texas, Louisiana, southern Alabama and Mississippi, or Florida because the risk of hurricanes is just too great. The area along the Mississippi River is already out of the question. Forget about the Californian interior, as well, due to those pesky wildfires.

Northern Mississppi, western Tennessee, western Kentucky, southern Indiana and Illinois, eastern Missouri, and eastern Arkansas are all out of the question because the New Madrid Fault is going to let off a big one sooner or later.

I suppose we could cram all 300 million of us into Montana and the Great Lakes region, and perhaps a few could live in Appalachia, but if we're going to avoid living in disaster areas, those are our only available options.

In conclusion, then, I have to wonder if some posters actually gave their position much thought before coming here to write. I'm guessing no.

That's a lovely essay, but I've never been one to say we have no obligation to the poor. Merely that government isn't the best vehicle to do it. Private charity does quite well-- much more good than government-- and it does it for less money; and private charity would do more, do it better, and do it for less if government would get out of the way.

[ugonow]

That is a really good question Paul.

You could also ask when did being personally responsible for you and yours become Governments job?

You could also ask yourself when did blaming the government for all your lackings become trendy? I am unemployed it is the government's fault.I haven't saved enough,it is the government's fault. All the government regs prevent me from making enough, My kid is doing bad in school it is the governments fault.Or the teachers.It goes on and on.When does personal responsibilty kick in? Everyone faces the same hurdles ....many excell,some fail and blame the government.

[Deleted]

A nation that snubs its poor does so at its own peril. I needn't remind you of the chaos and turmoil that has assailed every nation which failed to keep the poor from falling below a certain point.

I guess this is a difference of how we look at it. I believe that the nation should provide the "opportunity" for hard working people to get ahead. I don't believe that the nations responsibility is to feed, house, & take care of everybody.

Well, certainly not eastern Texas, Louisiana, southern Alabama and Mississippi, or Florida because the risk of hurricanes is just too great.

I grew up 80 miles from the coast. Hurricanes just aren't that dangerous unless your living right on the coast because their power decreases real fast on land. Even as close as I lived we had no damage (even flooding) ever for 30 years straight. I can name exactly 1 hurricane that did a lot of damage beyond that point that happened in my lifetime.

The problem is that the government doesn't have the money to build the levees necessary to keep the floodwaters at bay

I "think" that is discussion is about the people along the Mississippi getting their houses flooded. The whole point is that the government DID build something & DID make are run off area just off the Mississippi to protect the big cities located near the coast (because that area used to always flood & do a huge amount of damage to them). The problem is that the area the government designated as a run off area (where they diverted the water to) was settled by people.

That equates to me like someone building a house on a river bank 1 mile down from a damn KNOWING that every now & then the damn will be opened up putting that house below water. All Paul is saying is that if your going to do that then you could at least build something around your house YOURSELF that would keep it from flooding when that happens. Again I'll say that it wouldn't be that hard to do (and the pictures show that some people did do it). If your going to settle in an area that is dangerous (for some reason) then you should try to protect yourself & family BEFORE that dangerous condition is on your front door step. Just my thoughts.

[Deleted]

People SHOULD, but they don't. Just wait for gov't. Could be some do not know how insurance can fail them in flood situations, although after the HUGE debate following Katrina, which is when I learned about flood insurance, I don't know how there could still be people that don't know.

[cme1201]

May 28, 2011 8:12:47 GMT -5 ugonow said:

That is a really good question Paul.

You could also ask when did being personally responsible for you and yours become Governments job?

You could also ask yourself when did blaming the government for all your lackings become trendy? I am unemployed it is the government's fault.I haven't saved enough,it is the government's fault. All the government regs prevent me from making enough, My kid is doing bad in school it is the governments fault.Or the teachers.It goes on and on.When does personal responsibilty kick in? Everyone faces the same hurdles ....many excell,some fail and blame the government.

I would have to say that everything you typed out ugonow would fall under the label of personal responsibility. You could also ask when did being personally responsible for you and yours become Governments job? Personal responsibility means you accept both your successes and failures.

[Deleted]

The governments responsibility CAN NOT replace the individuals responsibility. It just can't. If I jump out of a plane without a parachute the government can't (nor should they) be responsible in any way for that. If did it, somewhere in the next 5 minutes (when I hit) I'm going to pay the price for something that I did. If you think about it for the government to be responsible for everybody's everything they would have to hire people to watch you 24/7 to keep you from doing something stupid. Not only would that not be cost effective BUT if you rule out the number of stupid people out there there aren't enough non stupid people to go around.

Sadly that's what society is coming to. People believe that the government should protect everyone from everything & if they don't then the government should pay to fix what went wrong in their lives. Now I can see someone wiping your butt if your 104 years old & not able to do it for yourself. I just don't agree that everyone should have it done for them just because they don't want to.

Liberals for a real learning experience spend the rest of the day viewing over & over the video Paul put in this thread. Understand that those people are out there (I want something free without working for it). Those people are reproducing & passing that same thought process on to their children. Try to get the fact that not everyone is poor because bad things that they didn't cause happened to them (& that they have already been around for generations, reproducing). Try to understand they they will take everything the system will give & cry because it's not enough. Finally try to get it that sooner or later society WILL break down because those that are productive are going to be out numbered by those that aren't productive & don't want to be productive.

The system is making these people who do nothing every single day. The system is flawed. Your trying to help people but in fact your hurting them.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

oldtex- the illusion of a safe, secure, zero-risk life is almost irresistable. It will always be an easy sell.

[Deleted]

The welfare nation cannot last forever, and continue to grow like this. The answer is not to take from the rich. All that will do is grown the welfare nation mentality until the rich throw in the towel and take their money out of the economy.

[Deleted]

The welfare nation cannot last forever, and continue to grow like this. The answer is not to take from the rich. All that will do is grown the welfare nation mentality until the rich throw in the towel and take their money out of the economy.

[Shirina]

I guess this is a difference of how we look at it. I believe that the nation should provide the "opportunity" for hard working people to get ahead. I don't believe that the nations responsibility is to feed, house, & take care of everybody.

The government isn't feeding, housing, and taking care of everybody. In fact, the number of people on assistance is really quite low as a percentage. Yes, we can provide opportunities, but are there really enough higher paying jobs for everyone? And what about the folks who aren't capable of higher paying jobs? What about those who can't work at all?

The idea of a "no welfare state" would turn America into Somalia. Mark my words.

Understand that those people are out there (I want something free without working for it).

Yes, it is unfortunate that those people exist, but they do. We can try our best to coax them into gainful employment, but not all will do so.

Yet the focus by conservatives, as it has always been, is on those people who are genuinely lazy. After generations of such a focus, they have lost sight of all the good it does. There is so much fear and pessimism on the right that I find it a minor miracle that these people find the courage to escape from bed each morning.

[cereb]

Some of these people absolutely make me want to vomit. No abortion! It's murder!!! Save the fetus! No welfare! It's nothing but a handout for lazy people who will never do anything more than suck on the government teat!

Buncha banshees.


The overwhelming number of welfare beneficiaries are....wait for it...







Children.

[Shirina]

There is a role for "self-reliance here" and it pretty much begins and ends with not building your home in the path of Mother Nature's wrath. It is perfectly appropriate to tell those who lust for beach-side living or in the tinder-dry forests of California to stay out unless they want to pay the sun, moon and stars for insurance and take their chances with their lives too. We don't subsidize foolishness.

So essentially you're saying wealthy people can live wherever they want, but everyone else will have to be crammed into Montana and the Great Lakes region (the only two areas of the US that isn't prone to disasters).

[pappyjohn99]

The government isn't feeding, housing, and taking care of everybody. In fact, the number of people on assistance is really quite low as a percentage.

Really?

www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/07/us-food-usa-stamps-idUSTRE6465E220100507


www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/some-43-million-use-food?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A3172497

online.wsj.com/article/SB124562449457235503.html

www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16985&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1017

[hello fromWarsaw]

It's called a great recession emergency (TYVM to deregulate, de-enforce and STUPID war Booshies) NOT a welfare POLICY.
Self reliance IS NOT frowned upon- but a gov't that doesn't subsidize opportunity, good jobs, and aid to the victims of Neocon disaster leads to a Banana Republic that can't compete in the world, which the savage capitalism misled seem to want. Most people get it now, due to Pub ideologue overreach. Keep digging, TYVM. Obama 54%, Pawlenty 46% ;D

[Deleted]

What about those who can't work at all?

I don't think that I have EVER heard a conservative say cut out all welfare (that's a liberal myth). Sure there are some that just can't work (my BIL is one of them). But there are holes in the system that need to be stopped up. The welfare system should not be someones aim in life (& it is for a lot of people). Unemployment is the same way.

Again here's an example: Detroit. The auto jobs are not coming back anytime soon. Yet I guarantee you that there are people waiting around for them to come back. I guarantee you that if they come back those people will be to old to work there. Do we pay them FOREVER (or the rest of their lives). We have generations of people on welfare & if they are able (& I don't mean that they can't because they have to stay home with a kid) then they need to get a job. Why don't they at least work cleaning up their neighborhood or do work at local hospitals, etc?

[hello fromWarsaw]

The Lordstown, Ohio, GM factory reopened last month- 4000 jobs- but thanks for the Pub wall of gloom and doom and moaning and insults...VERY helpful.

[bobbysgirl]

If we are still talking about settling in areas that are prone to certain weather patterns, I will never understand why people build close to an ocean. As pretty as an ocean can be, it can be so much more damaging. And the prices are outrageous. Go figure. I don't have any experience with other areas. I'm one of those lucky ones who live near a Great Lake.

[Deleted]

The Lordstown, Ohio, GM factory reopened last month- 4000 jobs- but thanks for the Pub wall of gloom and doom and moaning and insults...VERY helpful.

Gee Warsaw, glad your back. Why don't you take the little quiz I made up?

Four whole thousand back out of HOW MANY WENT AWAY?

Tell us about some more socialism? What other programs do we need?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Um, thanks for making my point, Lak. Government motors-- when you just can't get people to buy your peice of shit car, you steal the people's money and give it to the company that's failing at the expense of the companies that are succeeding without taxpayer help. It's welfare. There's no other word for it.

[Deleted]

The overwhelming number of welfare beneficiaries are....wait for it...
Children.

The simple solution then is to take the children away from parents that can't support them. Who know, it might even give the parents a little more incentive to do what they can to make a living.

Where money is concerned you should think with your head, not your heart. If you think with your heart then there's no limit to what it's going to cost you.

[billisonboard]

May 31, 2011 8:04:18 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

The overwhelming number of welfare beneficiaries are....wait for it...
Children.

The simple solution then is to take the children away from parents that can't support them. ...

And then do what with the children?

[Deleted]

And then do what with the children?

Good question because that's the real problem isn't it. Of course adoption would be a solution to a small percentage of the (that would mean that the adoption program would have to be streamlined. That needs to be done anyway.

Maybe another social program (on the assumption that raising them in large facilities would still be cheaper than paying all their parents money over years). A group home for children. I don't like the idea but off the top of my head that's all I can think of.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 31, 2011 8:04:18 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

The overwhelming number of welfare beneficiaries are....wait for it...
Children.

The simple solution then is to take the children away from parents that can't support them. Who know, it might even give the parents a little more incentive to do what they can to make a living.

Where money is concerned you should think with your head, not your heart. If you think with your heart then there's no limit to what it's going to cost you.

Maybe. Or, it could just amount to a childcare subsidy which means we'll just have more poor kids to take care of. If we have to raise your children, you get locked up. When you get out, you have a limited time to get a job, and a limited time to reclaim your children-- or, we lock your ass up again. Burdens to society simply cannot walk free while we carry their load.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We assume too much about "poverty"-- the first thing we assume is that the povert level in the United States represents anything resembling abject poverty. It does not.

The second assumption is that nobody should experience poverty, ever, for any reason, period. This is wrong. If we treated illness the way we treat poverty-- by merely alleviating the symptoms, and dulling the pain, it would kill people. It's a hard thing to say that some people deserve to be poor, but it's true.

The wrong signals are sent to the marketplace when people who work, who produce something, who save, who invest, and who are otherwise honest and responsible are punished in order to reward people who don't work, who produce nothing, who don't save, who don't invest, and who are otherwise dishonest and irresponsible.

[hello fromWarsaw]

USA- only modern country with full time workers living in poverty with no health care...happiness? We're#23!!
What to do? Take apart Medicare/aid and cut taxes on the rich, of course....absolute idiocy...

[Deleted]

Well, Paul, people have died because they could not access medical care due to cost. People have gone without basic shelter and slept in subway tunnels or the steps of churches. People have gone hungry. I know a man who will never see above the bare threshold for legal blindness. A delay in corrective surgery turned a preventable condition to lifelong disability.

And yet our friend that was on welfare left this town owing right at a million dollars in medical care to one of the hospitals (which under the present system they get to write off on their taxes). Sounds to me like those people your talking about didn't go in & get medical care. And it's not like they had to prove that they were citizens either because illegal aliens get free medical care all the time (free in that they just don't pay for it).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Government doesn't fix poverty with bigger and better programs. Government spreads poverty to more and more people as it gets bigger and more bloated programs that inevitably fail.