"The House You Live In"... Dedicated to Rockmom, NWO, and HB20

[rockmom]

For clarification, I didn't post my family's story, or my own for the purpose of illustrating that I'm any sort of unique situation.

 

I abhor the abuse of the system. But I don't think anything is solved by making blanket statements about people who receive aid. I think that the stigma associated with receiving any government assistance actually hurts some of America's poor, because they are afraid to be labled by seeking assistance.

 

There seem to be lots of statements about how easy it is to get aid, but in reality, the bureaucracy of the system actually makes it very difficult for new recepients. It's humiliating and tedious. A person who is working actually has to take off work to go to appointments. It's a whole day ordeal.

 

I think instead of generalizations about lazy freeloaders, we should be pointing the fingers back to the government to provide us answers about why people who are in the 'program' are continued to be recertified year after year after year. Let's call for a sweeping, comprehensive, brutally tough audit of the administration of the system. Let's call for an audit of everyone on the rolls. I'm 100% certain that such an audit would reveal a lack of diligence on the part of some agencies that administer the system.

 

I'm not saying all in administrators facilitate abuse, but I'm 100% certain such an audit would be eye-opening in what it revealed about how people who are abusers are actually facilitated by those who should be investigating whether they continue to qualify.

[mcpapa]

Arthur Brooks' book, Who Really Cares, is of course finding quite a bit of use as yet another rhetorical bludgeon to use against liberals. Conservatives give more to "the poor" than the hypocritical liberals who always preach against the wealth of the GOP.

 

...

 

We must also remember that Brooks is tracking charitable giving. This helps his cause, since one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is their relative willingness to use governmental programs to help society. This is shown by the universal healthcare plans already put in place by Massachussetts, Oregon and San Francisco, and Schwarzenegger's proposal for a statewide plan in California. Of course Medicaid is a liberal program, as are breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, WIC, and the multitude of other programs that had conservative opposition at their beginning and suffer continual attacks on their existence. These programs are usually funded better in "blue" states than in "red" states - for example, the complete breakdown of the social safety net in Texas is well-documented, even if it wasn't well-publicized in the 2000 election.

 

Then there is the troubling fact that red states are federal tax donors, while blue states are federal tax recipients. Some of this is offset by the larger number of military installations in the Western red states. For example, New Mexico is chock-full of land given over to one or another branch of the military, NASA and various other governmental organizations. However, we must not discount how Medicare and Social Security, those great liberal programs, figure into these numbers. Also, when state programs are subsidized by federal dollars, the money is coming from liberals in their blue states.

 

I would be willing to call it a draw, to admit that the differing worldviews of liberals and conservatives just propel us to different strategies, and that someone like Arthur Brooks probably just doesn't even comprehend that liberals give charitably through governmental programs.

 

LINK

 

Goes to show that virtually every "the cons have it right" piece can be countered with a "the libs have it right" piece. The hard-core BGP cons aren't likely to sway the hard-core BGP libs anytime soon, and vice-versa. While I unashamedly fall into the latter group, I do enjoy following the debates.:thumb:

[halfback20]

Goes to show that virtually every "the cons have it right" piece can be countered with a "the libs have it right" piece. The hard-core BGP cons aren't likely to sway the hard-core BGP libs anytime soon, and vice-versa. While I unashamedly fall into the latter group, I do enjoy following the debates.:thumb:

 

That is basically the point I'm trying to make. :thumb: :lol:

[Run To State]

I never claimed that liberals do more than conservatives. Not once did I even hint at that. I claimed that many right wingers lump all poor people together in one boat. Mainly I was talking about opinions that I have seen on this website in particular. Many conservatives on this site seem to think that all people on welfare are simply receiving hand outs. They seem to believe that most people on welfare are just lazy and that they are taking advantage of the government. I am sorry that I do not feel that way.

I think you're taking people on here out of context. Most people I've seen on here are just tired of the lazy ones. I can't recall anyone saying ALL on wefare are just lazy and taking advantage of the government.

[Run To State]

Arthur Brooks' book, Who Really Cares, is of course finding quite a bit of use as yet another rhetorical bludgeon to use against liberals. Conservatives give more to "the poor" than the hypocritical liberals who always preach against the wealth of the GOP.

 

...

 

We must also remember that Brooks is tracking charitable giving. This helps his cause, since one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is their relative willingness to use governmental programs to help society. This is shown by the universal healthcare plans already put in place by Massachussetts, Oregon and San Francisco, and Schwarzenegger's proposal for a statewide plan in California. Of course Medicaid is a liberal program, as are breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, WIC, and the multitude of other programs that had conservative opposition at their beginning and suffer continual attacks on their existence. These programs are usually funded better in "blue" states than in "red" states - for example, the complete breakdown of the social safety net in Texas is well-documented, even if it wasn't well-publicized in the 2000 election.

 

Then there is the troubling fact that red states are federal tax donors, while blue states are federal tax recipients. Some of this is offset by the larger number of military installations in the Western red states. For example, New Mexico is chock-full of land given over to one or another branch of the military, NASA and various other governmental organizations. However, we must not discount how Medicare and Social Security, those great liberal programs, figure into these numbers. Also, when state programs are subsidized by federal dollars, the money is coming from liberals in their blue states.

 

I would be willing to call it a draw, to admit that the differing worldviews of liberals and conservatives just propel us to different strategies, and that someone like Arthur Brooks probably just doesn't even comprehend that liberals give charitably through governmental programs.

 

LINK

A liberal blog tries to dispute the facts, imagine that. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[75center]

Arthur Brooks' book, Who Really Cares, is of course finding quite a bit of use as yet another rhetorical bludgeon to use against liberals. Conservatives give more to "the poor" than the hypocritical liberals who always preach against the wealth of the GOP.

 

...

 

We must also remember that Brooks is tracking charitable giving. This helps his cause, since one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is their relative willingness to use governmental programs to help society. This is shown by the universal healthcare plans already put in place by Massachussetts, Oregon and San Francisco, and Schwarzenegger's proposal for a statewide plan in California. Of course Medicaid is a liberal program, as are breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, WIC, and the multitude of other programs that had conservative opposition at their beginning and suffer continual attacks on their existence. These programs are usually funded better in "blue" states than in "red" states - for example, the complete breakdown of the social safety net in Texas is well-documented, even if it wasn't well-publicized in the 2000 election.

 

Then there is the troubling fact that red states are federal tax donors, while blue states are federal tax recipients. Some of this is offset by the larger number of military installations in the Western red states. For example, New Mexico is chock-full of land given over to one or another branch of the military, NASA and various other governmental organizations. However, we must not discount how Medicare and Social Security, those great liberal programs, figure into these numbers. Also, when state programs are subsidized by federal dollars, the money is coming from liberals in their blue states.

 

I would be willing to call it a draw, to admit that the differing worldviews of liberals and conservatives just propel us to different strategies, and that someone like Arthur Brooks probably just doesn't even comprehend that liberals give charitably through governmental programs.

 

LINK

 

 

I'm not following his logic. Is he calling it a draw saying that conservatives giving more of their own money is the same as liberals giving more of everyone's money?

 

BTW, GREAT song. I love his music.

[True blue (and gold)]

I think you're taking people on here out of context. Most people I've seen on here are just tired of the lazy ones. I can't recall anyone saying ALL on wefare are just lazy and taking advantage of the government.

 

I understand your point, RTS, but it has been demonstrated in this very thread that some do not understand the plight of many people that receive government assistance. They have all lumped together as jobless or stupid. Do they feel this way because they are awful, uncaring people? No, they just don't actually know the people they are condemning.

 

I can also counter your argumentby saying that no one here is denying that there are many that misuse the system and that the system itself needs an overhaul. I think that Rockmom's recommendations in that area are right on target.

[halfback20]

A liberal blog tries to dispute the facts, imagine that. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Exactly what I expected. Attack the source, not the content.

[Hasbeen]

What did people do in this country when disaster befell them personally BEFORE all of the modern welfare programs?

 

See post #38. Rockmom is the poster child for humanity helping humanity and a beacon to those looking for an example of rising up from a bad situation.

[cch5432]

I'm not following his logic. Is he calling it a draw saying that conservatives giving more of their own money is the same as liberals giving more of everyone's money?

 

BTW, GREAT song. I love his music.

 

Exactly what I expected. Attack the source, not the content.

:p:p Exactly what I expected- attack RTS's unnecessary comment and ignore 75's solid one. :jump::jump:

 

Seriously though, agreed with 75- that doesn't make much sense.

[Run To State]

Exactly what I expected. Attack the source, not the content.

I see no need for the personal attack.

 

The content is mostly the guys opinon, unlike Arthur Brooks. Arthur C. Brooks is a registered independent, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts. He cites extensive data analysis about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving. He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. Why do you believe the guy without the data over the guy with the data?

 

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

[Run To State]

:p:p Exactly what I expected- attack RTS's unnecessary comment and ignore 75's solid one. :jump::jump:

 

Seriously though, agreed with 75- that doesn't make much sense.

Why would you say unnecessary? I think the fact it’s from a liberal blog matters.

[Run To State]

I understand your point, RTS, but it has been demonstrated in this very thread that some do not understand the plight of many people that receive government assistance. They have all lumped together as jobless or stupid. Do they feel this way because they are awful, uncaring people? No, they just don't actually know the people they are condemning.

 

I can also counter your argumentby saying that no one here is denying that there are many that misuse the system and that the system itself needs an overhaul. I think that Rockmom's recommendations in that area are right on target.

Who on here has lumped them together in this category?

[Run To State]

I'm not following his logic. Is he calling it a draw saying that conservatives giving more of their own money is the same as liberals giving more of everyone's money?

Makes a lot of sense, huh.

[True blue (and gold)]

Who on here has lumped them together in this category?

 

Not you.