No, I was talking about the speeches Peggy used to write for Ronnie.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
No, I was talking about the speeches Peggy used to write for Ronnie.

Exactly my point. My other posts were about the Reagan view of the situation: free markets serve everyone, the government does a poor job of fixing the problems faced by working class Americans, let's get past "Dems want to help working class Americans and Republicans dont" (all around nonsense), etc.

If you're talking about Steve, then fine. If you're talking about Reagan, I think we can both agree that one doesnt "have to wonder how Republicans think the troubles and struggles of working class Americans should be addressed". The Conservative view is pretty well documented. And their answer isn't "not at all", unless you are referring to their answer to the question, "how should the government ensure that working Americans get paid what they think they should?".

got to catch a train...

Well, this is what we probably don't agree on. The market doesn't serve everyone because not everyone participates in markets equally, or have equal access to markets. So saying "free markets serve everyone" is a way of neglecting the people they don't serve, or the externalities that result from the functioning markets.

You also continually insist that government programs do a poor job fixing the problems faced by working class Americans, though I'm sure you could list plenty of worthwhile social welfare programs that you support.

So intervention in the market isn't a problem per se; it's how you do it, and what you do.

Agreed?

It is?

Again, come on, man. Get in the game.

Who do you think created this? Sorry but the worst thing the gov't could have ever done was try and take care of everyone and make people feel that it is the gov't responsibility to take care of them. If people would stop looking for someone to blame and turn that energy into making the current situation better you would not have Cabrini Green.

I agree, Steve. "Misguided Liberalism" being the operative phrase.
Too often, the solution has been to throw money at those places and "hope" for the best. When it fails (and it does), the response is always "well, we didn't send enough money. So clearly, their opportunities were limited or non-existent. By the way, it's pretty much your fault too."

Heck, you've got to agree that there should be a healthy mix of bootstraps & social welfare, no?
For me, I don't think the appropriate mix is: social welfare until every last person has bootstrapped their way out/up. I had a boss that once told me, the neatest thing about learning a trade & measuring your own success, is how successful those people you taught that trade to, become.

I have to sound like a broken record on here, but for me it comes back to the "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." And like I said, I've got no problem with us teaching fishing. But, I've got a huge problem giving out fish. The amount of fish starts to run out after a while.

Unless you're Jesus. (Had to throw that in there.)

Could you imagine if the Rev Wright put as much energy into his community as he did in finding people to blame. I mean actually putting it into it, cleaning up the neighborhoods, making repairs to property, getting out in the streets and providing a presence for their children, being at the playgrounds, school yards and on the way home, taking all the money the church makes and creating local day care facilities and loan programs for small business owners.

Yep, I see how just getting people are upset and collecting a nice big paycheck to do it is so much better. Ever wonder why the good Rev does not live in those areas?

Once again, you guys are really missing the point. We're talking about government policies. You're talking about responsibility lectures and self-reliance. Those aren't government policies.

If your notion of what should be done in our most challenging areas amounts to nothing more than telling people to work harder, then say so.

If you think there are substantive problems that changes in policy would address, then say so.

But you guys are talking about self-help. That's not a discussion about the role of government, unless you think there is no role of government in this area.

I don't happen to believe that. I don't imagine you do either.

As for the old "throwing money at the problem" line, that couldn't be more tired. We "throw money" -- billions more -- down an unretrievable hole in Iraq than we'd ever spend in a place like Cabrini Green, and I don't hear so much as a peep from you guys. We "throw money" at our farm bills, in our transportation bills, our energy bills. And you guys are really upset about a fraction of that sum might be invested in our cities? Really?

It's a canard anyway. No one is arguing for "throwing money" at anything, as if there's no difference between a program with tangible results and handing off money to someone with no accountability.

Legacy, you keep talking about teaching a man to fish. Wonderful. What do you think about job training programs? What do you think about money to help people attend community colleges? What do you think about early childhood education programs? After-school programs?

That's exactly what we're talking about -- improving the skill level, allowing people to transition and compete in the new economy.

What do you think we're talking about here, pulling up in a van and handing out wads of cash?

Jeez.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
What do you think we're talking about here, pulling up in a van and handing out wads of cash?

Jeez.

Oh, whew. Well, that's a relief.

quote:

Legacy, you keep talking about teaching a man to fish. Wonderful. What do you think about job training programs? What do you think about money to help people attend community colleges? What do you think about early childhood education programs? After-school programs?

That's exactly what we're talking about -- improving the skill level, allowing people to transition and compete in the new economy.

I think education programs should be replaced with school choice. That will fix the crummy public schools. They wont exist anymore.
Is OTJ training irrelevant? What happened to starting out as a laborer & working your way up? Only took me a summer building in-ground pools to figure out that wasn't what I wanted to do with my life.
There are federal loans out of the wazzoo for college. You just have to pay them back. Which means you would have to want to be in college in the 1st place. The problem is not the opportunities, or lack thereof, but motivation. You want to know what percentage of painters I employed that only worked my job above the table to pay child support, but were selling drugs on the side?
After-school programs are called "parents." Something this country has forgotten. Too quickly are parents looking to dump their problems children onto someone else. Or medicate them.

You can't create motivation, I agree. But you can create consequences when evidence of motivation is not demonstrated. The current way only perpetuates entitlement mentality, blaming others for your problems, and an endless cycle of mediocrity. Which is then being glorified in that community.

School choice will fix the schools and crummy schools won't exist anymore? Wow. I've never heard even the most ardent school choice proponent make that claim.

So your answer is that you don't want to see any government assistance to our most troubled communities?

Ok one Iraq is a different matter; let’s not mix up the two.

Actually I think you are confusing our point. It is not just worked harder, it is to the leadership out there to stop looking for someone to blame and a way to line your pockets and help the community that you are talking about. The Federal Gov't should not be in the business of taking care of people. That is not what it started out as or was ever meant to be.

How much money is raised and spent in Rev Wright’s church. How much of that goes back to start these programs and help the people. If you do not start at the core you can toss as much money in there as you want and it is not going to do any good, it has not so far.

First you stop the blame game. Next you get these organizations that love to get on TV and such and have them start working within their own communities to build them up. Once you have an initial investment there and an organization that can actually put money to work where it should be you could start to increase funding for public education and law enforcement. It was actually have an affect because you would have people not only involved and out in the neighborhoods, but you would have money invested in the neighborhoods, bet if that was the case the Rev Wright and old Al Sharpton would be a lot more attentive of what was actually going on.

Again with the ridiculous utopia arguments.

And you didn't answer the question. What role does the government have in these communities? What do you think should be done?

I don't think it is the governments responsibility to raise children, tell me how to invest my money, tell me how to feel, tell me if I'm sick.
And I most certainly don't think the federal government should act as a credit card either.

Okay. Me neither.

But do you think the government, both state and federal, should address the problems of an area like Cabrini-Green?

Heck, I think I already did that. Is there a reason why you will not address my points. Is it because if these "leaders" stepped up there would be no need for the Fed Gov't too.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

sorry to butt in here, but after reading this train wreck, its pretty clear that no one is listening to anyone else.

the answers given are not the answers the inquisitor wants, so the repetition continues.

i do have a question for heck: im not against the gov't assisting individuals who fall victim to circumstance, but considering the country is broke (for a variety of reasons beyond the drum beat of iraq), so how would you generate the funds necessary to help these unfortunate individuals?

seems to me that our system is set up to require a return for investment. i have seen little (and i mean a very small percentage) folks get assistance and try to better themselves. why work when you can get a free paycheck? it creates the same sinkhole for money that is iraq.

True but I think Heck got his answer but has refused to see it.

It is not the victims of circumstance that are the problem. It is the people that knowingly just don't care. Hit a rough spot is one thing, getting knocked up for the third time at age 19 is another. Same with drugs, the more local communities get involved the sooner this ends.

When did we become a country of we have to take care of everyone.