Why are the poor, poor?

[Artiste]

HerrKaiser, maybe the poor is poor because they are too much:


   'Stereotyped'       ??

.............

Instead of looking at each person to see what and how it can be helped ?

Seriously ?

Au revoir,
hugs!

[serious crayons]

Look, it is quite, imo, disingenuous to claim 'stereotyping' and 'oversimpliying' when discussing a strategic movement forward to help solve the issues of non productivity and drains on the social system. I find it counterproductive to stall or roadblock strategies because they may not, in an overall sense, address every possible variant.

In claiming 'stereotyping' you would seemingly deny good pharmaceuticals from being on the market because they "stereotype' results among the largest populations of symptoms/results when, in fact, some people could die from usage or missuse.

'Stereotyping' is negative buzz word that should more often than not be replaced with 'target audience'.

Um ... well, OK, let's see: "Your stereotyping and oversimplifying target audience of anti-poverty programs keeps you from seeing that many of them already do just that."

Hunh??

I don't think you understood my point, because it has nothing to do with proper allocation of pharmaceuticals.

My point, to put it in the simplest possible terms, is that there are already anti-poverty programs in place devoted to teaching Johnny how to do his homework, to use your analogy, and in other ways teaching people to catch their own fish. Your posts suggest that you may not realize that.

If not, my best guess is it's because standard conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away. That's where the word "stereotype" comes in -- not really replaceable, in this context, with "target audience."

[Artiste]

Everyone needs education.

The poor is getting less and less of it !!

So dope pushers have a field day, everyday!

Why is that ?

Au revoir,¸
hugs!

[HerrKaiser]

Um ... well, OK, let's see: "Your stereotyping and oversimplifying target audience of anti-poverty programs keeps you from seeing that many of them already do just that."

Hunh??

I don't think you understood my point, because it has nothing to do with proper allocation of pharmaceuticals.

My point, to put it in the simplest possible terms, is that there are already anti-poverty programs in place devoted to teaching Johnny how to do his homework, to use your analogy, and in other ways teaching people to catch their own fish. Your posts suggest that you may not realize that.

If not, my best guess is it's because standard conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away. That's where the word "stereotype" comes in -- not really replaceable, in this context, with "target audience."

You are right, i do not understand your point and your simplest of terms explanation made it no more clear.

If you are suggesting that conservatives assume 100% of assistance programs are ineffective and 100% of such program recipients have not benefitted in some way, you are stereotyping the "conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away". Most surely appear to be; if any are not, great. But, it cannot be denied that the extensive desire--even in the Clinton administration and in the state of WI, one of the most burdened by entitlements--to CUT substantially the entitlement programs is because the resources being distributed are both wasteful and NOT results oriented...mostly about giving money away.

[serious crayons]

I agree with the old saw "Teach a man to fish...." I don't know of many that don't...liberal or conservative.

I think most liberals and conservatives agree with the "teach a man to fish" idea, including probably everybody posting on this thread.

The difference to me is that if, for some reason, teaching a man to fish isn't possible, liberals would let him have a fish anyway, and conservatives would make him go hungry. Liberals would assume there's some practical reason he can't fish, conservatives would assume he's lazy.

If you are suggesting that conservatives assume 100% of assistance programs are ineffective and 100% of such program recipients have not benefitted in some way, you are stereotyping the "conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away"

The liberal gives Johnny the answers. Johnny goes out to play.

What would YOU conclude, from your own posts?

it cannot be denied that the extensive desire--even in the Clinton administration and in the state of WI, one of the most burdened by entitlements--to CUT substantially the entitlement programs

Well, there you go. Do you consider Bill Clinton a conservative? Do you think of Wisconsin as a conservative state? Or ... is it possible you're stereotyping liberals?

[HerrKaiser]

I agree with the old saw "Teach a man to fish...." I don't know of many that don't...liberal or conservative.

Well, my sense from what I see, hear, on this forum, in the media and elsewhere is that the liberal leaning folks tend not to believe in this and/or place numerous caveats on the theorem. And that is, again generally speaking, not what one sees in the democrat programs for entitlements.

by the by...I love the term "old saw". Haven't heard that in years! My favorite is "it's an ill wind that blows no good".

[HerrKaiser]

Of course you know that social security and medicare are theoretically "paid" for by recipients.

this is literally not the case because they are absolutely not "accounts"; the payments into each are simply tax dollars that are spent by the goverenment in a variety of ways and are in no way held in place for future distribution to those who input. That is what Bush wanted to do (which was an EXCELLENT idea) but the dems defeated the plan mercilessly.

[Artiste]

Really !!

So your money goes away for something else to be given to somebody else (even for drug takers ?) !

Government does a con game ??

Shame !!

[Jeff Wrangler]

How so? what are you suggesting does not follow?

I answered that. It does not follow that because a program does not work, it was not compassionate. Compassion and success or failure are completely unrelated.

[Jeff Wrangler]

That said, the learning disability 'what if' is, imo, typical lefist nay-saying and constant desire to be paralyzed by indecision or joining a positive movement forward. I guess you could have said 'what if there is no library close by, what if it was closed when they got there, what if the computers were down....'  And that helps make my point about the left's focus on giving rather than helping people acheive.

Actually, this response just goes to show that Leftists live in a real world, where libraries are closed as a result of Conservative Republican tax cuts. Johnny can't be taught to discover things for himself in a library that isn't there.