Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on January 21, 2012 at 12:14am

I'm not concerned with wealth--punishing people for having or not having wealth is absurd.  I'm concerned that poor and rich American children alike are supossedly not learning the value of work.  Isn't that what Newt is telling us? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 21, 2012 at 4:13am

I'm afraid you're right. Immigrants, in general, seem to appreciate the value of hard work more than established Americans do. I think many of us are spoiled and are spoiling our children. I know I did. We give them what they want simply because they ask . . . missing the opportunity to make them earn it and, thus, learn at little about the value of work. We want our kids to have what we didn't and we also often avoid the stress of denying them what they want.

Note: "we" means "many of us".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 20, 2012 at 8:49am

I think Newt's reply would be that trust fund babies are unlikely to end up on the dole, selling hard drugs, pimpining out girls, or doing stick-ups or home invasions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stutz on January 20, 2012 at 3:44am

I think the difference of opinion is where you assign blame. Conservatives have long tended to blame people's personal failings, while liberals take into account the sociological and economic complexities and thus tend to blame structural causes. When conservatives like Newt do note the socioeconomic factors, they still shy away from socioeconomic solutions and suggest that the underclasses need to just use willpower to overcome their bad habits. That's what rubs people the wrong way about Newt's comment, I think: that he's not offering solutions, he's just ruminating on the bad parenting of poor people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 20, 2012 at 7:18am

@Stutz,

I agree with you. Conservatives do emphasize personal responsibility and liberals do emphasize government programs to assist those who, for whatever reasons, are not responsible for themselves. Us older folk remember when welfare was out of control (rampant abuse) and the reforms that finally came.

Personally, I believe government should provide a safety net for those in dire need and should also legislate against all forms of employer abuse against the poor. Everything, within reason, should be done to ensure the poor have the opportunities they need to rise above their circumstances. The operative word in the prior sentence is "opportunities". Government should provide a helping hand -- not a handout. Poor individuals who have the gumption and wherewithal to benefit from government programs (vocational education and employment assistance, student loans, job programs, low-cost housing, unemployment insurance, etc.) should have those programs available to them.

But what about the half of the population on the low side of the I.Q. bell curve? A significant number of them simply don't have the wherewithal to enjoy material success. Many are lucky to keep their heads above water. What quality of life should we ensure them? What material considerations (if any) are essential to ensure? This is where things get messy. After providing temporary safety nets (food, shelter, health care) and employment opportunities . . . what else should we do? How much should we sacrifice for the less fortunate?

If we all sacrificed whatever is necessary to ensure the happiness of everybody . . . would the underclass diminish or would it grow? Would we all be richer or would we all be poorer? Would we all be happier or would the expectations of the "have-nots" increase as the expectations of the "haves" decrease?

I suppose arguments could be made for just about any position on this topic. But I assert that human nature is what it is and it's pointless to pretend it's something it's not. We're lazy. We need incentives to get off our asses. The profit motive works but we need to guard against excessive greed. And we need to care for those who really need care.

It's not perfect but who says it can be . . . or should be? I think a cumbayá utopia would bore us to death.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on January 21, 2012 at 10:37am

But what about the half of the population on the low side of the I.Q. bell curve? A significant number of them simply don't have the wherewithal to enjoy material success. Many are lucky to keep their heads above water. What quality of life should we ensure them? What material considerations (if any) are essential to ensure? This is where things get messy. After providing temporary safety nets (food, shelter, health care) and employment opportunities . . . what else should we do? How much should we sacrifice for the less fortunate?

I don't think there is much you can do.  Prevention is the key to breaking the poverty cycle for many folks. If you don't intervene when they are babies and toddlers, then you'll never effect systemic change. Their mold is already set when they enter society.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page