Forgiveness vs. protecting Society

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

That’s a bit of a contradiction. If government should not use tax monies to help support the poor, how could they be helped? As you said, many people are completely unconcerned about the plight of the impoverished. We can’t count on charity to fully support them. That’s why government programs were created in the first place. Charity wasn’t covering their needs.

Nor do I agree with what some people believe-- that if the taxes used for welfare were given back to the taxpayer, that charity would increase. No-- spending would increase. Those who what to give to charity already do. Those who don’t would not be influenced to generosity by a tax break. (I would love to see a study of how much of Bush’s tax cut was donated to charity.)

It leaves us pretty much as we are. We can’t screw with the justice system too much without sending the whole system into a tail-spin.

Most criminal cases are plea-bargained. It’s really the only way to deal with the sheer glut of cases. Most offenders, when faced with the possibility of life would prefer to take their chances with the jury, at least having a chance they might be acquitted. They have nothing to lose, in other words. Increasing the number of life sentances for crimes would overburden an already choked justice system.

In sex crimes cases, especially, plea bargaining is vital. Chilc molestation cases are difficult at best if there is no physical evidence. Children are notoriously poor witnesses, and juries are reluctant to lable a man with one of our society’s ugliest terms if the witness seems unsure or possibly dishonest. (And a good defense attorney can shred a child on the stand quite easily.) Prosecutors are in the tough position of at least trying to get some time out of the offender.

I would argue that a step in the right direction would be the reinstitution of parole boards, with parole being part of the offender’s sentance. (Even if he serves out the max, he would still be under control of the parole baord for a period of time.) The parole board should be given the manpower and resources needed to truly be effective, tracking and monitoring offenders, ensuring that they get and keep a job and that they are staying away from criminal elements. It would be tough and expensive, but I think it would be quite helpful.

We certainly don’t need more death sentances. Leaving aside my issues with the Death Penalty, it’s grossly exspensive and drains too much valuable time away from the courts. Life sentances accomplish the job of keeping the offender off the streets and are much cheaper. Buuuuut . . . . more life sentances mean a greater burden on our staggering court system.

We should have more prisons. The ones we have now are incredibly overcrowded, and staff doesn’t have time to deal with individual inmates the way they need. Case ratios should be lowered to a manageable level. If staff persons got to spend time with individual inmates, they could give good recommendations to the parole board as to what areas the inmate will need supervision the most.

I think also we need to take a good hard look at some of the people we put in prison. I believe non-violent drug offenders should not be put in prison, nor should petty thieves. Instead, create a program in which petty theives work to reimburse the people that they robbed, and in the course, gain valuable job skills. Use the money that was on the incredibly idiotic War on Drugs to create treatment programs to help those who want to kick the habit. If society still wants to punish dealers, force them to work on projects which benefit their community, such as building rec centers and parks.

But, none of this will ever happen. Politicians will fight to their last breaths to prevent it, and the citizens would howl if asked to pay for it.

What’s realisticly to be done: nothing. We learn to live with it.

22

Some of these things are being done in my area-not so much the restitution but the comunity service and drug treatment. The problem in my experience is that the drug treatment alternative is fairly often used inappropriately- certainly, it makes sense to sentence someone convicted of drug posession to a drug treatment program. It makes no sense to sentence with no history of drug use and presently convicted of assaulting his girlfriend to the same drug program.Lots of other situations fall in between-did the woman who stole thousands of dollars really do it to support a claimed drug habit or is did she make up the habit to be treated more leniently?
Another problem, in my view is determiining who really wants treatment. Lots of people will say they want drug treatment when their options are saying that or being sent to prison. But I also see the other side - the ones who get drug treatment as a condition of their parole or as a sentence after a conviction, never make it to the program or leave quickly, ask for another opportunity when they are tracked down and repeat the same behavior over and over again.Not a horrible problem for those whose only crimes are drug possession- but it is a problem with those who commit other crimes as well.

23

Well, the assault and theft should be dealt with seperately, in my opinion. It matters little what made a person commit a crime, be it drug use or simple greed. Whatever the motivation, they committed assault and theft. The drug use is a different issue.

In my opinion, posession should not be a crime at all, so there would not be a choice to be made. Treatment for addiction would be strictly voluntary.

It’s my opinon that addiction is not a crime but a sickness and should be dealt with accordingly. Just like quitting smoking, quitting drugs is difficult. Any major lifestyle change is difficult. How often do people fail who are trying to lose weight? Or who make a resolution to work out every day?

Yes, there are people who steal to support their drug habit, but does that really matter in the long rin? There are people who steal so they can buy a bigger TV, or to feed their kids, or just because they feel like it. How is that any different?

Stealing and drug use are two completely different moral issues. Some people who use drugs would never dream of stealing.

I do not buy the theory that legalizing drugs (or at least eliminating prison time for posession) would increase violent crime or property crime. Those willing to steal are probably already doing so. Secondly, there is a segment of the population who would never use drugs even if they were sold in K-Mart next to the aspirin. Thirdly, workplace drug testing would keep many people away from drugs even if they were legal in order not to get fired.

24

I agree completely.

See, this is where I see a problem. Not with you, but with many other people who believe addiction is a sickness and prefer treatment to incarceration. They seem to believe that addiction is not only a sickness, but a sort of mental illness so severe that it removes all responsibilty from the addict. I tell such people all the time that I have no problem with drug possesion being legalized, but I would expect that the drug addict who comitts an assault would then be treated the same as the non-addict. They find that unacceptable , because in their view, the only reason the addict committed the crime is because of the addiction.

I think legalizing drugs would probably eliminate a certain amount of violent crime.Not the robberies, but the violence associated with certain methods of selling drugs.

25

[QUOTE=Lissa]

I see you’re point. Let me try to clarify. There’s a lot of waste and mismanagement in certain programs. Years ago I met people a private firm that handled minors convicted of drug posssesion and such. They made them work at projects that taught them team work and personnal accomplusment while they recieved weekly counseling. The company made a profit doing it. Were cheaper than what it cost our government to send them to a youth detention center and had a much higher success rate {kids that stayed out of trouble} It boggles my mind that with verifiable success like that out there that decades go by and we seem to learn nothing and make such little progress.

I think we need to change not only how things are done but the perception of why we are doing them. Education for the poor is in the best interest of all of us. If loans were available to educate the poor they might then pay off the loan by useing their education to help others who needed it. There’s talk now of service organizations that like the peace corp but are in country.
In Jersey a few years ago the governor put a limit on how much money a single mom might get, no matter how many babies she had. The liberals screamed at how awful it was and how the children would suffer. After a couple of years the birth rate went down. We need to help in such a way that motivates and requires people to help themselves and others.
About 15 years ago there was a small town or county in Virginia or around there that had so many people on welfare that they instituted a new law requireing those recieving aide to work x number of hours a month doing some useful work for the town. It saved the county money.One quarter to one third of the people refused and droped off the roles rather than do menial labor. That meant they didn’t need it to survive.
I agree with you that a lot of people wouldn’t give enough but I think there’s other ways to fund such programs. Small luxury taxes so that esstianals for some are provided by the consumption of others. That way consumers would be chooseing how to spend their money. A quarter on a rented movie. A dollar on your satilite or cable TV bill. An extra one percent tax on other items such as big screen HDTV. Of course this would result in companies screaming bloody murder and lobbying to not be on the list. A few years ago in MAine they tried to institute a snack tax. A small extra tax on snack foods to help pay for education. The companies went into high gear to get their products qualified as “real food” and not a snack.
I agree that certain non violent crimes should contain more work and victim compensation.

That seems fairly bleak. If we don’t start taking some steps to address thse problems they’ll only get worse. Sadly that seems to be the American way. I am particulaly disgusted with the media these days. They have become the equivilent of super market tabloids. No guts, just a feeble struggle for ratings. A courageous media could do much to focus on certain issues and educate the public. I agree about the parole, or that some crimes should require the offender to be monitored.

The exception to this rule would be adult drug dealers who sell to children or get children to sell to other children. I think the penalty for selling drugs to kids should be higher.

There will be a price to pay for our neglect.

26

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Saying that the new law caused the birth rate decrease may be what social scientists charmingly call a “fundamental attributional error.” The birth rate in that area would have to be compared with the national rate-- did it also decrease? Also, there are other factors which may have effected the rate. Did a new birth control program offer assistance to low income women?

Again, I don’t think you should necessarily attribute their motives to pride or laziness. They may not have had transportation, or child care, or other family problems which kept them away from those jobs. They may have had health problems like a bad back.

Those are all great ideas. “Luxury” items should be taxed more heavily. There are a lot of smart ways like that to earn extra revenue.

Buuuuut . . . the people who buy these things are the people who vote. (Yes, the poor buy them too, but usually don’t vote.) Americans are hostile to tax increases, and politicians would be loath to piss off their constituency.

I don’t think they’ll necessarily get that much worse. There’s sort of a “ceiling” to criminality. I’ll try to explain this the best I can, but it’s a rather complicated concept which would take a full-length book to fully explore.

Let’s put it this way: if two percent of the population is “criminal”, the actual number of criminals and criminal acts will increase as the population grows, but the overall percentage of crime rate remains about the same. It’s kept in check by society. After all, most people would never dream of committing a felony.

The media encourages us to think that the world around us is getting much more dangerous and that crime rates are skyrocketing because fear sells newspapers. It’s the old “fly in a pan of milk” syndrome: all you can see is the fly. Stories, especially aggregious ones, stick out in our minds. We focus on the times we hear of crime, not the crime-free days, in other words.

It’s kind of an exciting time for those who study criminal behavior. With the changes in our economy, new studies might help solve the debate over whether criminal behavior is primarily motivated by socialization or economic factors.

Now, we have to get into “labelling theory” which requires a book of its own. What does society consider “criminal” at any given time? During different times, different criminal acts come into prominence, and new laws are passed to deal with those crimes. (I think that sex offenders will probably be the next class on which we focus.) This can lead to an almost “witch hunt” mentality in which society fears those criminals the most, and screams for the problem to be addressed. The actual numbers of these offenses may not have shown an overall increase, but media attention makes people feel there has been an explosion in their numbers.

The public doesn’t want to be educated, or else PBS would be the highest-rated channel in the world. The media being a for-profit industry, they must provide what is most consumed. If the public wants to hear about Paris Hilton, by God, they’ll give it to them.

If most television stations became corageous, as you wish, then people would simply change the channel to those that aren’t, or, God forbid, turn off the TV and do something else.

You can’t necessarily blame them for wanting to make a profit. That’s why they exist. They are responsible to the stock holders who are more interested in dividends than ideals.

Also realize that it’s against the government’s interest to have a well-educated, well-informed public. If people truly understood the ramifications of laws being passed and that politicians aren’t providing any answers, there’d be tremendous shake-ups in this country.

Politicians don’t want that. They want us to worry about the issue they choose, and to worry correctly, meaning to think the way they want. Intelligent people see through their bullshit in a heartbeat, but the majority of people smile and nod. Those are the people they want voting.

That’s why our educational system will not change. They want students studying for standardized tests, regurgitating names and dates on command, not (dear God forbid) learning to think critically. That’s the last thing they want.

Do you really think that will fix the problem?

As long as a market exists, there will be a dealer to provide what the market desires. If you take down one dealer, five more will step up to take his place, and the supply is endless.

Not really . . . we’ll bump along much as we ever have, oblivious to the damage our system does to the underclass. Overall rates of criminal behavior will remain much the same, and we’ll continue to produce useless, poorly thought-out laws to “fix” the problems. There will be moral panics and politicians pounding the podium, and things will go on the same as they have.

27

[QUOTE=Lissa]

I couldn’t say for sure. I seem to remember the birth rate went down in the catagory of singles moms recieving welfare specificly. I’ll see if I can look it up.

If I remember the report correctly, then an effort was made to find simple tasks they were capable of and posed no risk. I remember one man claiming he just wouldn’t do menial labor that was beneath him because he had certain training. He didn’t mind accepting the monthly check though. Back in the mid 80s my wide and I were really struggling and wound up in subsidised houseing for a couple of years. There were plenty of women there who’s working boyfriends were liveing with them unreported. Working for cash under the table while someone else pays the rent. They could afford better cars and color TVs in their kids rooms because someone else was paying thier rent and energy bills. It used to irritate me when they would complain about the apartment rules. Wanna fix that? Get out and pay your own dam rent.
Believe me the system needs to require something of its recipients. I’m glad some help was there when we needed it but we got our feet under us and got out of there. We payed a higher rent than most because we reported both our incomes.
It’s not just the recipients who milk the system. The middle men who provided subsidized houseing were making a bundle. The rents were half again as much as they could have gotten from anyone other than the state.

I agree that we spend much more time on entertaining ourselves than educating ourselves and/or helping others. I don’t blame anyone for wanting to make a profit. They do have a choice about how much of a compromise they will make for that profit. There’s a profit in selling crack to teenagers but that doesn’t really justify it. I’ve never bought the “we’re just giving the customer what they want” defense. If someone wants to committ mental suicide do we say “Oh boy a chance to make a buck” I think there’s a responsibility shared by provider and consumer.
Don’t buy cheap crap and wonder why it falls apart. And have the integrity to not sell or provide cheap crap.

I do realize that. Someone,or someones, has to be the catalyst . Ghandi and Martin Luther King brought about change by bringing things to the attention of the public. They made the need for change undeniable and unavoidable.

It’s not a fix. I just think that selling drugs to an adult who is able to make an adult choice is one thing. Influenceing a minor is another. Two different crimes.
Selling drugs to adults might warrent community service and probation. Selling drugs to minors should carry a minimum prison term.

Hmmm interesting. There are consequences for the choices we make. HAs to be but I think I get your point. Things may shift this way and that but remain relatively the same. Maybe. MAybe not. We shouldn’t think we’re invulnerable to certain things simply because we’re the good ole USA.

28

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

The example of one individual should not be construed as to be the attitude of the group as a whole.

Would you have prefered it if they did not work at all? Personally, I think that initiative should be applauded.

I knew a woman on welfare who had a shiftless husband and two children. She got a job-on-the-side cleaning a lady’s house for one day a week for thirty dollars. In a fit of spite, her sister reported her to the welfare office, which threatened to end her benefits. She stopped working for the lady.

I find this to be a flaw in the system. Yes, people shouldn’t be earning a good salary and getting benefits, but thirty dollars a week is by no means able to feed a family of four, let alone take care of other expenses. She could work no more than one day a week, because she had no one to watch the children. Should she have given up her benefits?

I feel that families should be encouraged to do things like this, up to a certain dollar amount, of course. If she had been able to continue working, perhaps she would have saved enough to afford child care, and then been able to take on more clients, possibly building herself a business that would have eventually taken her off of public assistance all together. We’ll never know.

Easier said than done, my friend. Perhaps they were earning a little extra money on the side, but was it equivellent to what they were getting from public assistance? They may have been able to work a few hours a week, but could they have worked full-time at those jobs, earning enough to pay all of their bills and been able to afford childcare, too?

It’s a nice thought, but what about those who can’t give “something?”

A one-size-fits-all system is dangerous, because it has the potential of eliminating people who truly need assistance but for legitimate reasons, can’t comply.

And, hell, even the lazy gotta eat. I’ve said it before on this board, and I’ll say it again: Welfare is what keeps the poor from beating us to death with our own designer shoes. Revolutions happen when the poor are hungry, and watch with jealous eyes as the rich flaunt and squander their money. Welfare keeps crime rates in check. I’m a fiercely ethical person, but damned if I’d watch my child starve to death when I could steal a loaf of bread.

As the grandaughter of a HUD housing landlord, I can state with reasonable certainty that he deserved every penny. The tenants sometimes tend to tear up the apartments, refuse to pay their rent portion, disrupt the neighborhood and do other myriad things which are huge headaches.

Then, the consumer’s responsibility is to “buy” the quality product, and they’re just not doing it. They turn their backs on quality and stampede towards crap.

To put it more simply, is McDonald’s an ethically bankrupt establishment? (Leaving aside their exploitation of farmers and their employees.) Their food is junk, but Americans gobble it up. The sushi resturant down the street doesn’t see a minute fraction of their business, but their sashimi is awesome. Is McDonald’s wrong for “providing what the customer wants?”

Profit margins. Stockholders.

Americans want cheap goods. If it breaks, they’ll buy a new one.

Hey, no arguments here. As I said, the virtue and glory are in the struggle. Just don’t be too dissapointed by the results.

I just don’t see where it would do any good. it would put more pressure on our justice system for what is largely a symbolic gesture. It will not, for a moment, even slow the drug trade.

The United States keeps a political and social homeostasis. We go through waves of conservatism and then liberalism, but they tend to balance one another in the end. The harder one side lashes out, the harder the backlash will be when the other side gets its turn. (Conservatives are probably gonna be hatin’ life in about eight years.)

Likewise, we go through panics about crime, and then get bored with it. Media saturation has us all convinced that the sky is falling, then, suddenly, we’re more occupied by social or environmental issues.

We’re not invulnerable, but I would seriously bet everything I own that life will be much the same in 100 years.

29

[QUOTE=Lissa]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Obviously it isn’t since it was only a fraction of those recieving aide who dropped off the roles. My point was that when those people were offered a chance to work and pay back some of what they had been getting for free, they chose not to. For some that meant they were able to support themselves without welfare and were still taking the money.

[QUOTE]

I agree. The sustem is flawed. It’s been years and I have no idea what has changed. It seemed to be set up so those that were fully dependent got taken care of and those who were motivated to earn a little lost more benifits than their income could cover, medical being first on the list. Changes should encouage people to work and contribute while expecting a reasonable affordable amount to go back to those provideing support. In this case my suggestion would be that welfare required said shiftless husband to work.
The ones that irritated me were those with live in boyfriends with full time good paying jobs who still allowed the state to pay the bills, and then conplained about it. Of course if I allow my compassionate brain to take the lead for a moment, Many of them did eventually get off welfare once the relationship was trusted.
That doesn’t justify their dishonesty or their complaints about a system they were willing to use.

It should be done on a case by case basis. Very few could contribute nothing at all. I have an old friend who is recieving disablity. He is physically unable to work but he is a brilliant guiy and still able to contribute. If the system was set up to require a little something from him it might actually be a blessing.

I’m not suggesting anything like that. No matter what we won’t have a perfect set up. Some that need help won’t get it and some that don’t will milk the system. t still needs to be evaluated on a regular basis to bring about nessecary changes. I consider myself a liberal realist. Society has a moral obligation to care for the impoverished. That obligation also means we are responsible with our use of public funds. We try to provide encouragement to those to enable folks to help themselves, even if that means the occasional kick in the ass.

Funny. I suppose thats realistic. Again, our society and our economy should allow those with a minimum job to afford the basics of life. Regardless of all the comercials about how very crucial the right, clothes , car, or scent are, we might teach adults to behave more like adults and realize that peace of mind and a sense of worth doesn’t come from compareing stuff.

I agree to a point. I’ve known many landlords who describe what a huge headache it can be. In the case I described the owner had gotten a low interest government loan to build low income houseing. Then the inflated rents paid of the loan. Essentially the taxpayers had bought this multimillion dollar property for him.
Not responsible stewardship of public funds in my eyes.

Here again I see it as a shared responsibility. The manufacturer also has a choice. I’ve worked in retail. I remember a lady bringing back her third ten dollar phone and seriously asking me, “Isn’t this a good phone?” I was stunned I could only respond. “It’s a TEN DOLLAR phone.”

Again, it’s a shared responsibility. If someone gets rich selling porn do we look at them with high esteem? We draw bogus lines of seperation and justification in our minds. In Buddhism there is a moral and spiritual responsibility to make sure the way you earn your living makes a contribution to society. I agree with that. Equal blame goes to consumer and provider.

Our children. Our grandchildren.

If it caused a few dealers to limit their sales to adults then it might be worth it. I don’t expect it to stop the sale of drugs to minors. It’s a matter of justice. {as flawed as it is} You don’t put accidental homicide in the same class as premeditated murder even though the end result is similar.

You may be right. “Classes come and go but the 2nd grade is always the second grade” What worries me now is that many seem to believe that what happened in Nazi Germany couldn’t possibly happened here. I’m not so sure. Corrupted and stolen elections. Those in power subtley altering the balance of our system so that they might remain in power. Controling the bulk of the media. PLaceing their allies in key judical positions. Perhaps I’m being an alarmist. I think it’s folly to underestimate the corrupting effect too much power and money. We may linger in the “it couldn’t happen here” or “as long as I have what I want” one generation too many.

30

I’m just not certain there still wasn’t need there. If I were a poor person, I’d be loath to put all of my eggs in one basket, or my support in the hands of a boyfriend who might pack up and move on to greener pastures, especially if he was resentful of having to support a family.

I’m sure that a good portion of those living in low-icome housing would prefer to live elsewhere. If they were making so much, why didn’t they move? Even the greedy usually want to see their children grow up well.

Again, it’s a great sentiment, but you’ve got to consider all the issues keeping the poor from work in the first place.

He claimed to have an injured back and was trying to get disability.

The problem with a case-by-case system is that it’s enormously expensive. The publis is even less willing to provide welfare than it is to pay for criminals.

The price of having a social safety net is that some will abuse the system, no matter how hard you try. Plans have been evaluated in the past much like what we’re discussing, and the conclusion was that it was just cheaper to give everyone the check rather than try to evaluate case-by-case.

But it doesn’t. To afford housing, food, medical care, transportation, and all of the myriad expenses of a home, it’s been estimated that a family needs to earn at least $11 per hour-- considerably more in some markets. Minimum wage is much less than that.

It’s hard to ask someone on public assistance to leave for a minimum wage job where they work like a dog, put their children in the care of strangers, and end up with less than they had when they were on the dole.

Where I live, there is one factory which pays about that as a starting wage. Whenever they announce hiring, they are flooded with literally thousands of applications for just a handful of positions. The other jobs around town pay, on average, seven dollars per hour, (unless you’re skilled, like a nurse.)

Uhm, I do. I see nothing wrong with good, honest porn. It’s been an industry for thousands of years. There’s certainly nothing bad about it.

I’m not willing to bet the farm, but I’m pretty confident we won’t see concentration camps. Those in power realize that the American people will only take so much. We may allow a few civil liberaties to be fudged now and then, but we have a bloodly fit if anyone tries to really change things. Look at McCarthy-- he wasn’t even killing anyone, and he’s one of the most revilled American figures.

But those in power are just as interested as we are in keeping things relatively the same. What motivates them is personal greed, not a grand vision of national domination. They want to stay in power, but they want and need the system to stay relatively stable, because, otherwise, what’s the point? They don’t want the American people to get upset, so they won’t go too far with it.

31

[QUOTE]

You mentioned that without mandated funds the rich wouldn’t give enough to help the poor. I think there is an equal an opposite side to that coin. There have been generations of welfare families. The attitude of take the government money it’s easier than the struggle does exist. Thats why I feel there needs to be some motivater built in for those who won’t find it on their own.

That doesn’t mean he couldn’t contribute something.

Unfortunatly this makes a lot of sense. Here’s a thought. Lets train some of those recieveing aide to do the work of the case by case assesment. They get training. The support they get is making some kind of contribution to the very system they are in. Instead of paying an office full of social workers we have those getting their rent, heat, food , and health care paid for to do the work.

True and that I think is our failing as a society.

Again, our failing as a society.

I guess that depends on what you think qualifies as “good honest porn”

take a look at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Precursors perhaps. We can imprison someone without evidence or due process indefinatly.

Do you think the German people knew what Hitler was planning?
The changes are subtle, over a period of years, with a feeling of ,well it really won’t get that bad, and once the power is in place, it’s maintained by fear of reprisal. Look at the signed alegiance forms to bet into a Bush rally. Look at the threats being made against those who won’t tow the line. I hope you’re right that it can’t get too bad, but I don’t like how it looks and I hope we don’t rely on some false sense of superiority. “It couldn’t happen here” reality check It could happen anywhere.

Gee that seem so logical. See any contradictions in history? I agree that it’s about power and money. The problem is those poisens don’t always behave rationally.
Well, Our posts have gotten very lenghty. I sure have enjoyed our exchange of ideas. Many thanks

32

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Okay, here’s a quandry-- what if he refused? He had three kids. Cutting off their benefits would have made the children suffer. What if he was one of the worst abusers of the system, and refused to do anything out of simple laziness? He’s still gotta eat, and so do the kids. Cutting him off probably wouldn’t induce him to get a job. Instead, he may turn to crime.

If all of these factors were true, would society be better off “bribing” him with welfare checks to keep him home in front of the TV and not out stealing?

Just curious.

[quoteUnfortunatly this makes a lot of sense. Here’s a thought. Lets train some of those recieveing aide to do the work of the case by case assesment. [/quote]

How do we get them to work? How do they get chiild care? Where do they get office-appropriate clothing? Who ensures they show up? What if they prove incompetent? What happens if, for whatever reasons, they don’t come to work? How do we ensure they’re being fair, and not just denying benefits because they know and don’t like the applicant?

My husband manages 500 employees. He’ll tell you that it’s difficult to manage people who are there willingly let alone people who may be resentful at what is mostly a symbolic gesture.

You may feel that it’s not symbolic, that they would be learning valuable job and social skills, but the problems that kept them from work in the first place would still be there, and there aren’t jobs in the private sector falling from the trees.

Pretty much anything that doesn’t involve children or violence.

I think eventually the courts will address this matter.

Yes, I do. The politically aware only had to listen closely to his speeches. (Of course, like modern times, there were probably a great percentage which didn’t pay any attention to what was really going on.)

Read Hitler’s Willing Executioners. It’s all about this very subject.

I don’t see any contradictions in history. As I said, we go through periods of conservatism and liberalism. Right now, we’re experiencing a form of neo-McCarthyism, but remember, the 1950s were followed by the 1960s, a period which epitomises social change. The harder the conservatives push now, the harder they will be pushed later. (I’m predicting the backlash will start in about eight more years.)

Yes, it could happen here, but I’m betting not. (If it does, I’d better be on one of the first boats out-- my kind are often the first to be targeted. :smiley: )

I’ve enjoyed it too. We may not agree on a couple of issues, but it was fun.

33

[QUOTE=Lissa]
.

No people must bear the consequences of their choices. We may struggle as what just consequences are but we can’t remove consequences.
A free ride for this person would be no guarentee he wouldn’t turn to crime. Do his children suffer by haveing someone like that for a father. Paying his bills for the sake of his kids is one contributor for the generations of welfare we’re dealing with today. There’s no sure formula to eliminate children suffering but if he’s given the opportunity to make an effort and can’t get his act together in some kind of reasonable time frame then his kids are better off without him.

All good questions. What if some were given jobs as bus drivers. Others provided child care. With provided computers some could log in and work from home. There are plenty of casual appropriate clothes available at thrift stores. We’re not talking banking or wall street standards. Finding what they are competant at would be part of the challenge. I realize there are complications. I think the failures of the welfare system has compounded some of those problems. The idea that if I just make a good excuse then someone will support me , is one of the problems. We must expect responsibility and teach responsibility. When my Dad was in financial trouble in the early sixties he said it never occured to him {no education} to ask for a handout. He went to the town and offered to work for them to pay his taxes, which he did every year I can remember. I think a lot of poeple would gladly contribute to earn their keep and over time as this expectation became the norm, it could change things for the better.
When I was young I had some great friends that lived as a commune in an old farm house. Something similar could be done for the poor. Instead of a distant faceless agency run by government employees {who we can’t gaurantee are fair or show up} it’s people from their own neighborhood who understand there struggles and know thier scams, who are driving the bus and provideing child care. They’re taking care of each other. Learning some skills and a sense of accomplisment. It might be a drop in the bucket but over time it could help set a new standard.

It is symbolic but also a step in the right direction. Symbolism can lead to real change. A full bucket begins with the first drop. Woah, how Zen.

You mean the judges in their pockets courts? Thats one of the dangerous changes I see.

It sounds like you know more about it than I do. I’ve seen a few speeches by Nazi leaders that are disturbingly similar to some of the political rhetoric we hear today. “If you question our leader you must be a traitor” “The subversive enemies within”

I hope you’re right.

I think this kind of exchange is exactly what our democracy is about. It can lead to real solutions and progress. I start with the assumption that I can always learn something if I listen at least as much as I talk.

34

did we highjack this thread or what??? I hope nobody minded.