The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
Artiste:
Merci broketrash !
You say:
Exactly, that is the type of thoughtful response that keeps a discussion going! I agree education is a key to understanding how to take control of one's life, whether you are a male of female. How many times many of us had wished that Ennis and Jack had more options.
As I said in an earlier post on this thread. Both women and men have to take responsibility for the decisions which lead to poverty. I especially like the "swift kick to the groin". Women need to stand up for their individual autonomy and not let skanky men dog them and then move on to the next victim. That man who dogs you is not going to help you with the baby. And there is the problem, we the tax payers get stuck with paying the bill for the work of the dog and the woman who allowed him in. "kick him in the groin" by all means.
You last sentence is especially correct, among heterosexual men, women hold the key!
...............
Broketrash and others:
That sounds good. I am all for education. However, we need women and men to have kids !! ??
Yes??
Why is it that muslims men can have legally at least 4 wives SAME time, and we, can NOT ?? Fair??
Muslims are now same numbers as the Catholic religion (RC, protestants, etc.) !! So, there will be more poor in our democratic countries since a man can have only one wife, and one and a half kid ?? !!
Troubles, much more ahead !! ??
Au revoir, hugs!!
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on May 02, 2008, 07:25:11 pm ---Well, Friend Broketrash, I'm glad to know that at least the first part of my Friday morning post didn't offend you, but I guess I wasn't clear in my question because it appears you've missed my point.
What I am trying to ask you is, What is the basis of your faith that the states will assume the burden of welfare if the federal government is taken out of the picture? What makes you so sure it will even be a matter for debate if the federal government does get out of the way?
I'm not questioning whether or not debate on the subject is a good thing. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that your pet "federalism" theory might even be correct: Perhaps the states could do a better job of dealing with the issue than the federal government.
What I want to know is why you think they will or would do it. "Because the theory says they can" is not an answer to the question of whether or not they will.
You must understand that I have spent virtually my entire life in an old, industrial "rustbucket" state in the Northeast. Pennyslvania has one major city on each end of the state, and vast rural areas in between. The members of the state legislature go up to the state capital to look out for the interests of their constituents--which is good and proper.
What they also have is a sad history of failing to look out for the good of the state as a whole. I'm sure that individually the members of the Pennsylvania legislature are, in general, good, moral persons, but collectively as a legislature they would let the poor die of starvation in the streets of Philadelphia before they would tax their rural constituents to do anything to solve the problem of poverty in the state's major metropolitan areas.
A theory is not worth a warm bucket of spit if people do not have the political will to put it into practice. This is what I see lacking in all your "federalism" theories. I also question whether it is wise to assume that a theory that may have worked just fine among 13 scattered states with small populations strung out on the Eastern Seaboard in 1789 will necessarily work in a nation the size that the U.S. has become in the 21st century.
I'm afraid it just seems to me that you "federalists" are living in a fantasy world where people are of good will and will do the right thing for their fellow man because it is the right thing, and I just don't think that's realisitic. The federal government is needed now because the states will not protect the poor or the rights of minorities (why I feel that gay marriage will only come about as a result of federal action, but that's a topic for another thread).
--- End quote ---
As you read my post, you will notice that I said that I don't know how much of a burden individual states will take up. there will be 50 individual state solutions. Some will take up the entire burden that the feds currently shoulder, others may offer more creative solutions, some may sadly do nothing. It will be an "experimental laboratory" as to what works and what doesn't work. In the end, those states which make progress in eliminating an underclass problem, will be the winners and will attract investment and growth. So, the states will be motivated from the stand point of economic development to find creative solutions and lower the welfare rolls.
What is definite is that if we keep the present system, the problem of the underclass will NEVER GO AWAY.
FDR used the approach of an "experimental laboratory" (his words by the way) in order to end the economic crisis in the 1930's. He threw everything reasonable at the problem, some things worked, some didn't. His approach was nationwide, but this new federalist approach to solving the welfare crisis uses the 50 states as 50 laboratories and gets Washington DC out of the way and lets the states do the job that is their constitutional duty.
Artiste:
Broketrash: merci as you say, and may I note that is likewise for most countries, letting themselves be experiments to gas warlords and others such criminals runing their economies !!
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 02, 2008, 08:40:17 pm ---
... which I do not support. I think they're already tracking fathers down and forcing them to contribute -- though perhaps not effectively enough. But forceably sterilized? No. That would be unconstitutional, I think.
--- End quote ---
no it seems to be constitutional, several states either now or in the past have used enforced sterilizations on repeat sex offenders. it is only a new interpretation of the law to allow that the repeated fathering of children which the tax payers must support is a type of sexual offense. I am in favor of implementing such a program right now.
I bet that dead beat dads will cough up the money, if the consequences of not supporting their children is sterilization.
Artiste:
And the next thing will be the sterilization of gay men?
And the unwanted females ?
And the unwanted others ?
Germany all over again ?
Such tools were used in Canada, the USA, etc., too !!
To me, the solution is for such men to be given decent jobs, and that part of his paycheck taken away !! ??
Maybe ??
Au revoir,
hugs!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version