Why are the poor, poor?

[HerrKaiser]

from what we have seen from the 'conservative voice' on THIS thread, there isnt' much (if ANY) compassion at all coming from them either..

I guess this depends on how one defines compassion.

conservatives believe the human spirit elements of acheivement and self reliance and self respect need to be part of everyone's existence. Providing the encouragement to acheive such is compassionate.

Liberals seem to feel it is compassionate to simply give folks things which most conservatives feel is a road to disaster. Few people, left or right, continue to support, for example, the aspects of the 1960s war on poverty wherein the government build massive housing developments so the poor could live for free. They quickly turned into major ghettos of crime and violence which was regenerated by subsequent generations. Not very compassionate in my book.

A good example of the difference between conservatives and liberals:

Johnny can't do his homework; he is struggling. Everyone agrees a helping hand is needed. The conservative takes Johnny to the library, shows him how to use the resources, and encourages him to complete the task. Johnny feels accomplished and capable.

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

I think the conservative way is far more compassionate. The liberal way is "nicer" by some definitions because it doesn't make him work, but does nothing for his well being.

[serious crayons]

A good example of the difference between conservatives and liberals:

Johnny can't do his homework; he is struggling. Everyone agrees a helping hand is needed. The conservative takes Johnny to the library, shows him how to use the resources, and encourages him to complete the task. Johnny feels accomplished and capable.

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

This analogy does not seem to have any parallel in the real world.

[Artiste]

Are there ONLY two choices ?? A- One for the poor to remain poor amd become more poor, and the middle class to become poor too ?? B- The other choice for the very wealthy to rule for themselves ONLY ??

1- Maybe HeirKaiser means that the Liberals let libertine rule society and no added schools or training is done, and so the child who is poor receives no schooling needed ? My sister needed help in Math. and so the liberals do not considered that she needed that nor care less if she did get that special attention !!

Liberals let the unrulers rule ! ??

2- Maybe HeirKaiser means that the Conservatives just think for themsleves ? My sister will never get the right education because she is middle class and/or in the poor class ??

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

It is easy to see that the very wealthy are becoming more dominant still and do not care that much, if at all, about the other classes of society!  And, in the way, they will not only destroy the others, but themselves !!

That seesm to be the norm more and more !! ??

Look at China ruling with murder and nobody cares (since only too few cares) !! Even most Olympians could not care less if they sport in the China 2008 Olympics ?? !! Shame !! Would you invite a known murderer into your home, if you are not a murderer ?

The poor are not considered anymore in to-day's world; governments and others only pay lip-service !!

What do you think ?

Au revoir,
hugs!

[Jeff Wrangler]

I guess this depends on how one defines compassion.

conservatives believe the human spirit elements of acheivement and self reliance and self respect need to be part of everyone's existence. Providing the encouragement to acheive such is compassionate.

Liberals seem to feel it is compassionate to simply give folks things which most conservatives feel is a road to disaster. Few people, left or right, continue to support, for example, the aspects of the 1960s war on poverty wherein the government build massive housing developments so the poor could live for free. They quickly turned into major ghettos of crime and violence which was regenerated by subsequent generations. Not very compassionate in my book.

This is a non-sequitur. Because a program turned out not to work does not mean it wasn't "compassionate" in its inception. Presumably the conservative idea of "compassion" would have been to save the money and just leave those people in the run-down, substandard housing where they were in the first place, since that's how the projects ended up.

A good example of the difference between conservatives and liberals:

Johnny can't do his homework; he is struggling. Everyone agrees a helping hand is needed. The conservative takes Johnny to the library, shows him how to use the resources, and encourages him to complete the task. Johnny feels accomplished and capable.

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

I think the conservative way is far more compassionate. The liberal way is "nicer" by some definitions because it doesn't make him work, but does nothing for his well being.

This analogy does not seem to have any parallel in the real world.

Agreed. It's a typical conservative gross oversimplification. Suppose Johnny is "struggling" because he has a learning disability? Then what does the conservative do? Probably abandons him in the library to fail.

[Artiste]

Johnny would not have a chance to go to the library, because schools are starting to close down libraries !!

So, likewise, cities are trimming libraries to the core and even have closed some !

Maybe the dope dealer has a library where Johnny will be forced to go to ? To learn what ?

Au revoir,
hugs!

[louisev]

to view the American population as divided between "conservatives" and "liberals" is not only oversimplistic, it is also highly misleading and mostly wrong.  The majority of Americans are actually centrists - somewhere in between.  The far right and far left "positions" which Herr Kaiser has boiled down to "big government tax and spend" ideas as opposed to "small government self-reliant" ideas is the roughest and least accurate of all descriptions of the US electorate.

However, looking at the one topic of "Johnny can"t read", the "conservative" presidency of GW Bush did not "bring Johnny to the library", and as a teacher of English, I can guarantee that bringing Johnny to the library will not teach him to read.  The solution enacted was the "No Child Left Behind Act", which was "Test Johnny repeatedly on massive standardized tests and modify the curriculum to teach to the test."  It has been a manifest failure.

[brokeplex]

Liberals seem to feel it is compassionate to simply give folks things which most conservatives feel is a road to disaster. Few people, left or right, continue to support, for example, the aspects of the 1960s war on poverty wherein the government build massive housing developments so the poor could live for free. They quickly turned into major ghettos of crime and violence which was regenerated by subsequent generations. Not very compassionate in my book.

Johnny can't do his homework; he is struggling. Everyone agrees a helping hand is needed. The conservative takes Johnny to the library, shows him how to use the resources, and encourages him to complete the task. Johnny feels accomplished and capable.

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

I think the conservative way is far more compassionate. The liberal way is "nicer" by some definitions because it doesn't make him work, but does nothing for his well being.

All very well stated Kaiser. Good analogies

 You should however not be under any delusion that many on this thread will admit to the failure of LBJ's trillion dollar War on Poverty. As an argumentative premise that the Social engineering projects started in the 60's are failures, you will not find any takers among the left. Why else would there be no interest in radical welfare reform? The left in this country will not admit any failure on the part of their sacred cow programs, as it would force them to admit the internal contradictions within their own proposals. No, they are perfectly willing to let the same old programs produce one generation after another to be imprisoned in the underclass.

So really it comes down to them only grudgingly and under intense political pressure admit to half heartedly making changes around the edges of the programs, i.e. Clinton's welfare reforms in the 1990's. To me that has almost been a waste of time, the only method of extracting the inextractable problem of the underclass is radical reform.

1) get the issue away from the feds
2) reform secondary education towards a two track system
3) allow mandatory birth control for welfare recipients
4) make the men who father children and abandon those children either pay up, or ship out to a prison farm
5) allow mandatory workfare for recipients
6) rest control away from the permanent welfare bureaucracy by allow the tax payers to vote in yearly referenda on any changes needed in the programs

[Jeff Wrangler]

The majority of Americans are actually centrists - somewhere in between.

This is why, according to my old poli sci prof, the Presidential candidate who is perceived as being closest to the center is generally the one who wins the election.

[Jeff Wrangler]

You should however not be under any delusion that many on this thread will admit to the failure of LBJ's trillion dollar War on Poverty. As an argumentative premise that the Social engineering projects started in the 60's are failures, you will not find any takers among the left. Why else would there be no interest in radical welfare reform? The left in this country will not admit any failure on the part of their sacred cow programs, as it would force them to admit the internal contradictions within their own proposals. No, they are perfectly willing to let the same old programs produce one generation after another to be imprisoned in the underclass.

So really it comes down to them only grudgingly and under intense political pressure admit to half heartedly making changes around the edges of the programs, i.e. Clinton's welfare reforms in the 1990's. To me that has almost been a waste of time, the only method of extracting the inextractable problem of the underclass is radical reform.

Is it not contradictory to say that the Left refuses to admit that things don't work yet agrees to make changes? Why agree to make changes if you don't think something isn't working?

Besides which, the claim is untrue. Otherwise, for example, we would still be building highrise housing "projects" instead of instituting programs to help the poor to homeownership--in some cases they even help build those homes to really give them a sense of "investment" in the house.

In any case, in the alternative universe of the Conservative Right, "welfare reform" really means "welfare elimination."

Of course, if the underclass is eliminated, who's going to weed the flowerbeds and mow the lawns and diaper the babies and clean the houses and wash the dirty laundry of all those rich Conservatives?

[Luvlylittlewing]

I guess this depends on how one defines compassion.
A good example of the difference between conservatives and liberals:

Johnny can't do his homework; he is struggling. Everyone agrees a helping hand is needed. The conservative takes Johnny to the library, shows him how to use the resources, and encourages him to complete the task. Johnny feels accomplished and capable.

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

Nonsense!