This is a very sad story about a bear.. Everybody should heed the warnings not to feed wildlife because they become dependent and don't forage for themselves any longer. It is such a tragedy to see what has been done to our country's wildlife! The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect U.S. wildlife.
Animals that formerly were self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party. They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance. This photo is of a black bear in Montana turned Democrat. He's nicknamed Bearack Acorn Obearma. It is believed that he has become a campground organizer.
I had to post this, thanks Ammon. I know it plays on stereotypes and generalizations about the democratic party but those stereotypes are, after all, based in some truth. And besides, if there's even a discussion to be had about what the entitlement attitude has done to this country then it's already too late.
Troy, I love you man, but you should be ashamed of yourself. Posting this conservative, judgmental trash!
ReplyDeleteThe middle and upper classes shouldn't be the only people in this country who can afford to purchase a flat-panel TV*. Everyone should have that!
And all those who actually work for what they have, should be so grateful for their God-given personal work ethic, that they will gladly pay for the rest of the country to get one of those TV's too!
*TV can reasonably be replaced with any term, product, expensive vacation or dream you can think of ☺
Sigh..... you clearly don't want to have a sensible discussion on the topic. Too bad it could have been interesting.
ReplyDeleteYes, it brings lots of stereotypes..., but ya know, I'd rather have that bear sit at the table and wait than indulge his self-sufficient side and eat me up. But that's just me. Some like to be eaten alive.
ReplyDeleteTouchez, Fran. Very good. So let's keep going with this. I think it's possible for the bear to be properly contained within a fence, with enough room to roam and see to his needs, while also reducing the risk of the innocent passer-by being mauled.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing. I don't want WIC, food stamps, medicaid, or medicare to completely go away. And even if there are republicans who secretly desire such a thing it will never happen. Ever. Nor should it, because there IS a place for government in providing assistance to the needy. I think this help should come in its proper order though, as laid out by church leaders - family, church, government. In this way the government can still assist in providing essential needs for individuals and thus prevent some of the detrimental social ills that follow poverty while lightening the burden on government so they can focus on their duties as proscribed in our founding documents. But this idea still allows for government assistance programs. So in those cases where government will need to be of help I feel that if the proper order has first been followed then the government help will need to be minimal and only supplemental because assistance should have been sought from other sources first. The government should not be filling somebody's entire pantry except in the rarest of cases. If this pattern were followed the budgets of these social programs could be slashed dramatically.
How many times have we heard of leaders of this and other nations raving about Welfare Square and the system that the church has set up? Now granted there are logistical differences between a national government and a church government providing for the poor. However, the church system does not give freebies. Those on church assistance are asked to provide some service to the church. So the focus isn't on hand-outs, it's on encouraging self-sufficiency and you can't tell me that government assistance is about promoting self-sufficiency. So I think there are some changes that could be implemented in social programs to that end.
I think worse than the financial burden placed on government from these programs is the cultural decay that is occuring from the entitlement attitude that has set in. I think that the reason the church teaches self-sufficiency has much less to do with preventing economic burden for governments than it does with the preventing the spiritual decline that always comes when we find ourselves dependent on others (save Christ only) for our needs without providing anything in return. As with the individual, this effect is magnified if played out at the level of an entire society. There's a reason that the church focuses so much on the principle of work and the spiritual benefits of work. And though I can't supply numbers anyone would be stupid to think that there aren't A LOT of cases of abuse when it comes to these programs. I'm talking of households that are perfectly content to sit back and suck off the government while not seeking to improve their station in life. I've seen this attitude before in certain comments that others have made.
If attempts to better regulate business in this country were being accompanied by real efforts to prevent government excess and waste in its social programs and to truly provide for the needs of people I would be less apt to be cynical about this issue.
Let's not forget about self. SELF, family, church, government. Too many people don't even try to work it out themselves before asking for help from others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Troy for the most part. Here are some problems I see though. First of all, from my (granted limited)experience, I don't know that your order works so well (self, family, Church, government) nor that it's necessarily the perfect/right order. I do think people should make an effort to take care of their own needs. Clearly. They should do all they can before they ask for help. Interestingly enough though, while I find it pretty common from my experience in Germany, that family helps before you reach out to the government, here in the US I've found families (amongst members) usually being the last to help. I don't know how to word this right...basically, I've seen many situations with friends here in the US, where they turned to the government for aid, where I know friends in Germany had family help. Here, I almost feel like member families feel like you simply need to work it out on your own. Period. And I've actually heard that sentiment verbalized by quite a few members (sometimes in terms of "tough love" or the concept of once you're 18 you're on your own). So, I see a problem there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from what I know those on welfare from the Church do not always contribute back. At least from what I've experienced here in our ward, I know that we've had members receive quite a bit of help without doing much at all (which has been frustrating to me). So, that system isn't perfect either.
Anyway, I do think that all the government aid here could be vastly improved. The biggest problem I personally see is how easy it is to get aid/stay on government aid. Seeing how we're taking advantage of pretty much everything right now, I'm oftentimes simply shocked. Right now we also got cash assistance. And all it is is cash basically. No limits on what I can spend it on - drugs, beer, food, clothes, fancy TV's...you name it. Of course, Henry and I wouldn't abuse this, but I'm sure lots of people do. Trust me that those evil socialized countries (like Germany) don't hand out their money like that. You get help, sure. But it's pretty controlled, carefully budgeted out, and only for true necessities.
Another example of how inefficient the system here is, would be unemployment benefits. My father-in-law was on it for his last year before retirement. All he had to do to stay on and get the benefits was to report each week whether he had made any efforts to find work. Ok. But "efforts" that counted was stuff like simply chatting with your friend about work. That's it. You didn't have to show that you send out 50 resumes or whatever. Nope. Just thinking or talking about it was enough. Again, that would not in a million years fly in Germany.
So, I think one big problem with the welfare system of the US is that it's simply not well-designed. It doesn't really help people improve anything, or prove anything, or really make an effort. And that's certainly not good, and definitely bothersome. It does bother me. But, before we do away with most of it, I wonder if there is a chance to simply make it a good system and then see how things work. Dunno...
Well here's how I would reply Fran.
ReplyDelete1) If families, even families of church members, are encouraging their children to 'work things out on their own' then that's a problem. So I guess in those cases the individuals need to find help elsewhere since garnishing dad's wages isn't really an option. However, that doesn't change the appropriateness of the proper order. It's a shame, and a real travesty, that a mom or dad wouldn't help out. Personally, I can't understand that mindset.
2) As for those receiving church assistance who aren't giving anything back - I would caution against assuming that certian people on church assistance aren't giving anything back as the object is for all of the church assistance to be done very discreetly. It's quite possible that some of the people you speak of are coming in unbeknownst to anybody else to clean up the chapel or maybe even to serve at the storehouse. You never know. But again, the proper order is set (self, family, church, government) but if it isn't always followed it's not because the order is wrong, it's because it isn't being carried out properly. Similarly, the proper order of having a family is for a man and a woman to be married first. This doesn't always happen and you deal with what circumstances throw at you but the ideal is still established and should be sought after.
3) With regards to the ease with which government assistance is obtained in this country I can only agree with you. It's shameful and I think it has largely to do with government being lazy. They would rather throw billions of dollars away each year than actually tackle the issue. Our government is really, really good at this. They do the same thing with education. Despite EVERY bit of evidence that academic standards have dropped over the last decade or more, we still feel obligated to believe that if we just allocated more money everything would be fixed and God help the politician who even thinks of cutting the Dept. of Education's budget. But that's a debate for another time.
Getting back to my point. I didn't know the US government even did cash assistance. I'm in no place to judge you and Henry for using it and I do believe you when you say you wouldn't abuse it. But you are the exception here and I cannot fathom the number of people who are abusing that program. In fact, that IS a program that should be scrapped entirely. I don't believe the government should be giving away money without even attempting to attach strings to it. At least with food stamps there are some limitations on what purchases you can make. Granted, there are cases where people get WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more money than is prudent but that's my big beef with that program.
I agree with your last statement. I mentioned that I don't want to do away with these programs (except that cash assistance thing). I'm sure there are better ways to do it. But I'm afraid Americans are fat and lazy and they want what they want, they feel entitled to an endless supply of freebies from the government and the government knows that this is as good a tool to be used for manipulating the masses of potential voters as any other issue. Besides, government never gets smaller. It only grows and grows and grows. Reforming these programs would mean downsizing which means losing government jobs and anyone who believes the size of government will ever shrink is on something.
There's another topic (somewhat related) that I'm going to move on to in 2 days. I thought I would give Kyle one more opportunity to chime in here since he was apparently so excited to a week ago if only I was more mature. I think the discussion has reached a higher plane, so....
ReplyDeleteTake it away Kyle :)
Seriously though, I do want to hear your justification for keeping these social programs funded at the same level. I'm assuming that would be your position but I can't bend my mind far enough to the left to see how that's necessary, wise, or responsible. And yes, I do sometimes bend my mind to the left (ever so slightly) on other issues.
Glad to know I was missed.
ReplyDeleteI do not think now is the time to go at the social safety net with a machete. I am taking your comments in context with the overall debates over spending going on right now on state and national levels.
1) entitlement attitude- this a topic that I have found comes down to personal experience. Either the people you personally know that are on government programs tend to show an entitlement attitude or not, and accordingly you either see it as a problem or you don't. I don't know very many people that expect something for nothing.
2) Cash benefits- these are supposed to be for things like fuel, uniforms for work and utility bills. To qualify for cash benefits you have to be well, well below the poverty line (no offense to any who qualify). As such I can see the need for the program to help people, look for and get a job. Trying to micromanage the funds would cost more than it is worth is my guess. Besides that would require more bureaucracy which I would guess you are against.
3) overall costs of programs- gutting things like WIC, education (which you are a proponent of evidently), planned parenthood, foodstamps, pbs, the arts, etc. are like cutting off your finger to lose weight. I can agree that there needs to be greater oversight of fraud in the system. However, social security and medicare are the real issues at stake. Unless we figure out how to properly manage these major true entitlement programs (and the people on them are generally entitle to them by our own promises) we are not going to make a difference with petty cuts that amount to assaults on people at the bottom of the social pile, or those such as the young unable to speak for themselves politically.
What really bothers me is not cuts, but cuts in the absence of tax increases. We can't raise personal taxes on people in the top 2% of income brackets, but we can risk the health and education of the next couple generations, or ask people to go hungry? That is what doesn't make sense to me.
Seems to me that overall, we all think the programs itself aren't the problem, but rather how they are run and/or how people use them. At least that's my interpretation here.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cash assistance, I'm not really sure how it works or what the stipulations are. It did seem to me that part of the deal is that you need to be a student or something, so I guess not everyone can get it. I do think though that it would be pretty easy to set this program up at least in such a way that people cannot withdraw cash with their debit cards they get. I do find that very problematic. If they did just debit cards, then there would be a paper trail, and you could make sure or at least keep an eye on the money not being used for drugs and the like. I think that'd be very important.
Anyway, I'm tired, and need to nap. Keep debating though. I may chime in again at a later point.
Yes the problem (and it's a big problem) is in how these programs are run. I read a disturbing article yesterday explaining that something like 36% of Americans' wages in 2010 came in the form of social welfare benefits. It's up from 10% in 1960 and ~25% in the mid-90s or 2000. I can't remember which. That number is astonishing to me. More astonishing is that it isn't far off from the 44% in the UK.
ReplyDeleteGranted we are in an economic downturn and the number would be expected to rise. That's fine. The problem is this, the baby boomers are starting to retire which means medicare costs are going to go sky high. It seems like a very dangerous situation here. So these programs need to be restructured. They are unsustainable and I cringe every time I look at my pay stub and see medicare and SS taxes being withdrawn from my check. Not because I'm opposed to the idea of contributing to these programs but because I'm contributing money to a program that is not being run efficiently. I pay $2,300 bucks to SS and medicare each year and those who have stewardship over running these programs seem to treat them more as political pawns than anything else. I don't like contributing $2,300 to political games. I'd much rather have that money to ready my own family for the economic collapse which is inevitable if things continue at this pace.
Moving to a different point, I actually wouldn't be opposed to added bureaucracy if it means social programs will be run more efficiently and the waste and abuse can be avoided. The problem with big government isn't it's "bigness" per se, it's that its accomplishments don't seem to be commensurate with its size. In my experience, services that government offers which can be obtained by private industry as well, ALWAYS seem to work better in the private industry.
And for the record - I do not support the Rand Paul types who advocate for cutting PBS, NPR, Endowment for the Arts, etc. He needs to get serious. A major part of America's greatness is found in these institutions, which are a few of the remaining safe-havens for open discussion/refined entertainment left on earth. We watch alot of PBS in our home.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete