Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
can you hear me now!

More Hypocrisy from the Party of Family Values

155 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Papi said:

Where we disagree is on the issue of whether failure to live up to the "family values" is more commonplace among Republicans (notice the correct spelling) than among any other group. 

Individuals doing bad or stupid things should not brand the entire groups that such individuals happen to be a part of as all (or even most) having the same failings. It's called sterotyping, and it makse no sense to label a whole group in any way at all based on sterotyping. You suggesting we should do so about Republicans is just as bad as those who would suggest we do it about racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

As to the issue of "moral superiority", it seems to me that left leaning folks tend to claim that far more than conservatives tend to do. The good professor's long epistles over race are a fine example, seen here on pretty much a daily basis.:P 

I didn't say it was common depending on your political bent....what I said was simply if you claim to be something you aren't, then you are a hypocrite....we actually agree....

one can only claim moral superiority if one doesn't engage in immoral behavior....one cannot say they are morally superior and act immorally....that is the gist of my post....

what the professor posts about race relations has a large grain of truth in it.....however the message gets lost in wordiness....

I tend judge people by their actions and not words....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrsmlh said:

And by the same token, the Republicans who want to take foods stamps and any and all other help away from the poor are showing their true family values.

Seeking to reduce reliance on government support (be it food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc) in favor of helping people achieve the ability to support themselves, through education and job opportunities - is not a bad thing. But describing it simply as "taking away" whatever makes it sound negative, when in fact achieving personal and family self sufficiency (for those able to do so) should be a goal of good government, regardless of party. I'll be the first to admit that our federal government does a pretty lousy job of helping people (who are able) to achieve personal and family self sufficiency, but that has been true for decades, across many administrations, and majorities in congress by both parties. We just can't seem to get it right no matter who is in charge, and no matter how altruistic the underlying motives might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Papi said:

Seeking to reduce reliance on government support (be it food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc) in favor of helping people achieve the ability to support themselves, through education and job opportunities - is not a bad thing. But describing it simply as "taking away" whatever makes it sound negative, when in fact achieving personal and family self sufficiency (for those able to do so) should be a goal of good government, regardless of party. I'll be the first to admit that our federal government does a pretty lousy job of helping people (who are able) to achieve personal and family self sufficiency, but that has been true for decades, across many administrations, and majorities in congress by both parties. We just can't seem to get it right no matter who is in charge, and no matter how altruistic the underlying motives might be.

the first step to this independence is a living wage....as long as the USG has to prop up citizens because corporations don't pay living wages, then this cycle continues.....the US pays more in corporate welfare than it does to it's own citizens....that needs to be fixed

here is a very good read...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#7df4ef0927dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Papi said:

Seeking to reduce reliance on government support (be it food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc) in favor of helping people achieve the ability to support themselves, through education and job opportunities - is not a bad thing. But describing it simply as "taking away" whatever makes it sound negative, when in fact achieving personal and family self sufficiency (for those able to do so) should be a goal of good government, regardless of party. I'll be the first to admit that our federal government does a pretty lousy job of helping people (who are able) to achieve personal and family self sufficiency, but that has been true for decades, across many administrations, and majorities in congress by both parties. We just can't seem to get it right no matter who is in charge, and no matter how altruistic the underlying motives might be.

You cannot do away with food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc. and keep low wages stagnant and raise tuitions and interest rates for student loans and still say that you are trying to make a person self sufficient but this is exactly what the Republican party talking points are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, WhatintheHell said:

Boring

Of course...but if it was President Obama or his daughters you would be very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mrsmlh said:

You cannot do away with food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc. and keep low wages stagnant and raise tuitions and interest rates for student loans and still say that you are trying to make a person self sufficient but this is exactly what the Republican party talking points are.

I have yet to ever hear any Republican suggest "doing away with" any of those programs. Unfortunately, the mere mention of doing anything to stem the ongoing cycle of growth of those programs gets the "oh they want to push granny off a cliff in her wheelchair" treatment by the liberal press and the left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

the first step to this independence is a living wage....as long as the USG has to prop up citizens because corporations don't pay living wages, then this cycle continues.....the US pays more in corporate welfare than it does to it's own citizens....that needs to be fixed

here is a very good read...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#7df4ef0927dd

Businesses pay wages that are commensurate with the value of the job. People complain about fast food workers not earning enough, but if one fast food worker leaves there are always plenty of folks lined up willing to take that job. Artificially inflating wages beyond what a job is worth in the marketplace is a sure fire way to stifle our economy. The real need is to get people the skills they need to no longer be stuck flipping burgers, and seeking to assure there are job openings that need those skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Papi said:

I have yet to ever hear any Republican suggest "doing away with" any of those programs. Unfortunately, the mere mention of doing anything to stem the ongoing cycle of growth of those programs gets the "oh they want to push granny off a cliff in her wheelchair" treatment by the liberal press and the left. 

Of course no Republican says that but if they want to raise the bar for eligibility and lower the amount received  doesn't that pretty much does away with the programs.  It also depends on the state that you are in whether as some states do more for the poor than other states do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Papi said:

Businesses pay wages that are commensurate with the value of the job. People complain about fast food workers not earning enough, but if one fast food worker leaves there are always plenty of folks lined up willing to take that job. Artificially inflating wages beyond what a job is worth in the marketplace is a sure fire way to stifle our economy. The real need is to get people the skills they need to no longer be stuck flipping burgers, and seeking to assure there are job openings that need those skills.

Businesses like Walmart, which just recently upped their wages, have a majority of their employees receiving government assistance so it isn't just the fast food burger flippers that the Republicans always use as an example who need help.

How does a person get the skill to get a better job when they can't afford the tuition at even a community college because their entire paycheck goes to rent, food and utilities?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Papi said:

Businesses pay wages that are commensurate with the value of the job. People complain about fast food workers not earning enough, but if one fast food worker leaves there are always plenty of folks lined up willing to take that job. Artificially inflating wages beyond what a job is worth in the marketplace is a sure fire way to stifle our economy. The real need is to get people the skills they need to no longer be stuck flipping burgers, and seeking to assure there are job openings that need those skills.

why do you think wages are low> you certainly seem happy with more of your tax money going to profitable corporations rather than the people that work for them....that is an insidious type of "I've got mine" that keeps the status quo.....

corporations ask why pay you if I know the government is going to give you money to fill in the gap between your wage and your minimum living needs....and supply me, as the corporation, with giveaways for political donations....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrsmlh said:

Businesses like Walmart, which just recently upped their wages, have a majority of their employees receiving government assistance so it isn't just the fast food burger flippers that the Republicans always use as an example who need help.

How does a person get the skill to get a better job when they can't afford the tuition at even a community college because their entire paycheck goes to rent, food and utilities?   

Anyone who can afford a monthly smart phone bill and tattoos can afford classes at a community college.  Some schools even offer scholarships to students who graduate with decent grades from a public school.  In some places they can eve take community college classes when they are still in high school.

Some vocational trades will also take on interns to give them training and experience in a well-paying trade.

Burger flippers are so often used as an example because they are among the most visible of so-called minimum wage workers.

Any honest person who has every held a minimum wage job will likely tell you that they didn't intend to make it a career move.  They are usually beginning jobs or part-time jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

Anyone who can afford a monthly smart phone bill and tattoos can afford classes at a community college.  Some schools even offer scholarships to students who graduate with decent grades from a public school.  In some places they can eve take community college classes when they are still in high school.

Some vocational trades will also take on interns to give them training and experience in a well-paying trade.

Burger flippers are so often used as an example because they are among the most visible of so-called minimum wage workers.

Any honest person who has every held a minimum wage job will likely tell you that they didn't intend to make it a career move.  They are usually beginning jobs or part-time jobs. 

A key in all of this is the willingness of individuals to look at their priorities and make some reasonable personal decisions. One such decision is to seek to not make a career out of a low skill or no skill job, but of course that takes a level of commitment that some individuals are unwilling to consider. There are too many examples of young people who have made such commitments and been successful for me to accept the argument that "opportunity isn't there". Opportunity is indeed there for people willing to do what it takes to grasp it. I am in favor of doing whatever it takes to make such opportunities more plentiful and accessible, but I have little patience with folks who won't even try when the opportunity is there.

Edited by Papi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Papi said:

A key in all of this is the willingness of individuals to look at their priorities and make some reasonable personal decisions. One such decision is to seek to not make a career out of a low skill or no skill job, but of course that takes a level of commitment that some individuals are unwilling to consider. There are too many examples of young people who have made such commitments and been successful for me to accept the argument that "opportunity isn't there". Opportunity is indeed there for people willing to do what it takes to grasp it. I am in favor of doing whatever it takes to make such opportunities more plentiful and accessible, but I have little patience with folks who won't even try when the opportunity is there.

I agree that there opportunities for people to succeed.  My gripe is that those opportunities are out of reach for some people and it really upsets me when others say that everyone has an opportunity to succeed and that if they don't succeed it implies that they are lazy and want to live off the government.  Sorry but I've meet too many people working their butts off trying to succeed only to have life throw them a curve ball and set them back to square one over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mrsmlh said:

I agree that there opportunities for people to succeed.  My gripe is that those opportunities are out of reach for some people and it really upsets me when others say that everyone has an opportunity to succeed and that if they don't succeed it implies that they are lazy and want to live off the government.  Sorry but I've meet too many people working their butts off trying to succeed only to have life throw them a curve ball and set them back to square one over and over again.

And helping those folks who have been hit by the curve ball is fine. But I think we both know that there are some people who will go out of their way to avoid having to make the effort to pursue opportunity, no matter how accessible it might be. To the extent that some of our ongoing policies over the last 50 years have encouraged such attitudes we need to revisit the policy flaws. Suggesting that we should be doing so gets characterized as "taking away" something all too often. 

A couple of weeks ago a local TV station interviewed a resident of a public housing project in Baltimore (I think it was the Murphy Homes), and the lady, who appeared to be in her 60's, said she was concerned about plans to tear down all or part of the project because she had lived there for 50 years and had raised her children there, and would not know where else to go. I find it hard to fathom that such a person could be satisfied living in such a project for 50 years and had no opportunity in all that time to improve her situation. While this is just an anectdotal example, in my opinion it points to the larger problem that existing policies have failed to address successfully. 

Edited by Papi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Papi said:

And helping those folks who have been hit by the curve ball is fine. But I think we both know that there are some people who will go out of their way to avoid having to make the effort to pursue opportunity, no matter how accessible it might be. To the extent that some of our ongoing policies over the last 50 years have encouraged such attitudes we need to revisit the policy flaws. Suggesting that we should be doing so gets characterized as "taking away" something all too often. 

A couple of weeks ago a local TV station interviewed a resident of a public housing project in Baltimore (I think it was the Murphy Homes), and the lady, who appeared to be in her 60's, said she was concerned about plans to tear down all or part of the project because she had lived there for 50 years and had raised her children there, and would not know where else to go. I find it hard to fathom that such a person could be satisfied living in such a project for 50 years and had no opportunity in all that time to improve her situation. While this is just an anectdotal example, in my opinion it points to the larger problem that existing policies have failed to address successfully. 

Unfortunately people look at that one woman and claim that everyone is living on welfare for generations.  There will always be some who will be content to live in "the projects" for life but does that make them a bad person.  Do we get rid of the project to force them to move out to what we think would be a better life for them?  Do we cut the food stamp budget from about $126 per person per month to force the recipients to get a different or second job?  Do we cut medicaid to force people to get a different job that offers health insurance?  

To me, it is complicated by the fact that some people look at the abuse in the system and want to get rid of the system instead of realizing that there will always be some abuse and to come up with ways to minimize the abuse while maximizes the help to those who need it.

I volunteer at my church's outreach program.  I see both the truly needy and the ones who really don't need the help but want the free stuff.  Do you think the church should stop the outreach program because of the ones who abuse our generosity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mrsmlh said:

Unfortunately people look at that one woman and claim that everyone is living on welfare for generations.  There will always be some who will be content to live in "the projects" for life but does that make them a bad person.  Do we get rid of the project to force them to move out to what we think would be a better life for them?  Do we cut the food stamp budget from about $126 per person per month to force the recipients to get a different or second job?  Do we cut medicaid to force people to get a different job that offers health insurance?  

To me, it is complicated by the fact that some people look at the abuse in the system and want to get rid of the system instead of realizing that there will always be some abuse and to come up with ways to minimize the abuse while maximizes the help to those who need it.

I volunteer at my church's outreach program.  I see both the truly needy and the ones who really don't need the help but want the free stuff.  Do you think the church should stop the outreach program because of the ones who abuse our generosity?

The fact that you help in your church's outreach program is great. Kudos to you for being willing and able to do so. But I suspect that you and others who participate in your church program are able to identify the few who aren't truly needy, and can adjust how you respond to those folks without hurting your ability to help the truly needy. Our mega programs of the government have (in my opinion) lost the ability to effectively determine the difference between such folks, and as a result spend money and resources we can't afford on people who neither need or deserve the assistance. While some abuse will likely always be there, I believe widespread abuse is unchecked, and there seems to be little motivation to address it. Moreover, our governmental policies over the last 50 years have actually encouraged and fostered the abuse we see today, as opposed to incentivizing folks to better themselves. 

I didn't mean to suggest that the lady in my example is a "bad person", but I simply find it difficult to believe that anyone has been so prevented from seeking opportunity for a better domicile that they would be content to be in such a project for 50 years. But I can certainly believe that she saw that the "system" incentivized her to stay, because seeking opportunity would penalize her from a benefits perspective. That is the kind of policy flaw (failure) that I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Papi said:

The fact that you help in your church's outreach program is great. Kudos to you for being willing and able to do so. But I suspect that you and others who participate in your church program are able to identify the few who aren't truly needy, and can adjust how you respond to those folks without hurting your ability to help the truly needy. Our mega programs of the government have (in my opinion) lost the ability to effectively determine the difference between such folks, and as a result spend money and resources we can't afford on people who neither need or deserve the assistance. While some abuse will likely always be there, I believe widespread abuse is unchecked, and there seems to be little motivation to address it. Moreover, our governmental policies over the last 50 years have actually encouraged and fostered the abuse we see today, as opposed to incentivizing folks to better themselves. 

I didn't mean to suggest that the lady in my example is a "bad person", but I simply find it difficult to believe that anyone has been so prevented from seeking opportunity for a better domicile that they would be content to be in such a project for 50 years. But I can certainly believe that she saw that the "system" incentivized her to stay, because seeking opportunity would penalize her from a benefits perspective. That is the kind of policy flaw (failure) that I see.

 

You know nothing about that woman except she has lived in public housing for 50 years.

Who are you to judge her?

Would your Jesus or God judge her as you have?

 

How do you decide who you serve and who you don't?

Specfics.

 

Edited by songfourone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Papi said:

The fact that you help in your church's outreach program is great. Kudos to you for being willing and able to do so. But I suspect that you and others who participate in your church program are able to identify the few who aren't truly needy, and can adjust how you respond to those folks without hurting your ability to help the truly needy. Our mega programs of the government have (in my opinion) lost the ability to effectively determine the difference between such folks, and as a result spend money and resources we can't afford on people who neither need or deserve the assistance. While some abuse will likely always be there, I believe widespread abuse is unchecked, and there seems to be little motivation to address it. Moreover, our governmental policies over the last 50 years have actually encouraged and fostered the abuse we see today, as opposed to incentivizing folks to better themselves. 

I didn't mean to suggest that the lady in my example is a "bad person", but I simply find it difficult to believe that anyone has been so prevented from seeking opportunity for a better domicile that they would be content to be in such a project for 50 years. But I can certainly believe that she saw that the "system" incentivized her to stay, because seeking opportunity would penalize her from a benefits perspective. That is the kind of policy flaw (failure) that I see.

I think if instead of cutting the budgets of the different programs (food stamps, ebt, snap, etc.), we should hired more social workers to investigate the people who are getting the assistance.  Of course, I've been saying that for years and years now.   The programs have changed over the years and there are probably more people getting assistance than ever before but I'm not so sure that there is as wide spread abuse and people living off welfare for life as some think there is.  We see/hear about the person buying steak and lobster using food stamps and so many people believe it and think most food stamp users are eating like that.  We see/hear about the person with the latest iPhone using the EBT card to buy lottery tickets/liquor and think most people using EBT cards own iPhones and drink.  To me, people use these examples as proof that the abuse is wide spread and that the programs aren't working and should be ended.

If the woman in your example was a single mother, possibly unskilled labor making minimum wage and supporting her family as best she could, I can understand her staying in the projects for her whole life.   I refuse to label people lazy or whatever when I have no idea what their lives have been like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

I don't think you'll get any disagreement on that, the issue here is that a lot of the Republicans that get caught doing this like preaching (and legislating) in favor of "family values", making them... you guessed it....slimy hypocrites. 

Not really.  Both parties preach family values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Balmerboh said:

Not really.  Both parties preach family values.

I don't really agree. It's a tenet of social conservatism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He also contended that Mr. Murphy is already harassed regularly because of his political positions."

poor Mr. Murphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, songfourone said:

 

You know nothing about that woman except she has lived in public housing for 50 years.

Who are you to judge her?

Would your Jesus or God judge her as you have?

 

How do you decide who you serve and who you don't?

Specfics.

 

So you see no flaw in a system that causes a person to need to live in public housing for 50 years? I see it as a terrible shortcoming of a governmental system that purports to help people improve their situation over time but instead ends up trapping people into a situation of substandard housing surrounded by crime. 

I agree with mrsmlh that more social workers with the skills to identify need versus want, and the tools to assist those who are truly needy (as well as to push those with potential to seek self improvement) would be a great start. It's not a question of who do you serve and who do you not serve. It's a question of getting the right resources directed to the right people. The onl;y people who should not be served under that scenario are those who have the potential to use the assistance offered for self-improvement but refuse to partake of the opportunity. Right now we are woefully inadequate in our ability to help and motivate people with potential to take action for themselves, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mrsmlh said:

I think if instead of cutting the budgets of the different programs (food stamps, ebt, snap, etc.), we should hired more social workers to investigate the people who are getting the assistance.  Of course, I've been saying that for years and years now.   The programs have changed over the years and there are probably more people getting assistance than ever before but I'm not so sure that there is as wide spread abuse and people living off welfare for life as some think there is.  We see/hear about the person buying steak and lobster using food stamps and so many people believe it and think most food stamp users are eating like that.  We see/hear about the person with the latest iPhone using the EBT card to buy lottery tickets/liquor and think most people using EBT cards own iPhones and drink.  To me, people use these examples as proof that the abuse is wide spread and that the programs aren't working and should be ended.

If the woman in your example was a single mother, possibly unskilled labor making minimum wage and supporting her family as best she could, I can understand her staying in the projects for her whole life.   I refuse to label people lazy or whatever when I have no idea what their lives have been like. 

I agree with you that we need more and better ways to screen folks to get them the help that can best meet their needs. We do a poor job of that now, which leads to some of the situations (and assumptions, correct or not) that you have described.

I don't know if the lady who was interviewed was a single mother or not. But the fact of the matter is that single motherhood can occur as a result of circumstance (death of the father, incarceration of a father, abandonment by a father), or it can occur as a matter of choices made. The incidence of single mothers has increased dramatically over the last several decades, and in too many cases it has been by choice (albeit a bad choice much of the time). I very much suspect there are single mothers out there with significant potential for improving their situation if they had more assistance with their children, and I do not believe we (as a society, or as a government) do enough to help such single mothers in that way. Unfortunately, in some ways our policies have created the perverse incentive to have more children in order to gain more assistance, which in my opinion is a form of governmental child abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Papi said:

I agree with you that we need more and better ways to screen folks to get them the help that can best meet their needs. We do a poor job of that now, which leads to some of the situations (and assumptions, correct or not) that you have described.

I don't know if the lady who was interviewed was a single mother or not. But the fact of the matter is that single motherhood can occur as a result of circumstance (death of the father, incarceration of a father, abandonment by a father), or it can occur as a matter of choices made. The incidence of single mothers has increased dramatically over the last several decades, and in too many cases it has been by choice (albeit a bad choice much of the time). I very much suspect there are single mothers out there with significant potential for improving their situation if they had more assistance with their children, and I do not believe we (as a society, or as a government) do enough to help such single mothers in that way. Unfortunately, in some ways our policies have created the perverse incentive to have more children in order to gain more assistance, which in my opinion is a form of governmental child abuse.

 I agree that we don't do enough to help single mothers get out of the system.  Daycare is extremely expensive and cost prohibitive for unskilled, low wage earners.   If you are a single mother trying to better your and your child's lives it is very hard to do with the costs of tuition and daycare (all day or just before/after school).  

I don't know what the answers are to correct our system but I do know that we cannot just lower funding and expect it to get better. Instead of having more people gainfully employed we will end up with more homeless people IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0