Adam Carolla on OWS (NSFW Language)

[jhmd2000]

Somewhat in response to your state PH, I would say that the kids aren't entitled to anything. That is the misconception with our current welfare system. We feel entitled to everything. Now, does that mean the government shouldn't work to provide a safety net for these kids? Of course not, in my opinion our government should most definitely be looking to provide a way for these kids to grow, mature, and develop somewhat normally, but that is a far jump from someone being entitled to something. We are entitled to not be killed, we are not entitled for the government to buy our food if we can't afford to buy food.

I would still argue vehemently that the government SHOULD buy food and clothing for these kids, but I do want to make the point about entitlement. It is a huge leap, and it is a mental cornerstone for many of the problems we have with welfare. Instead of looking at our government programs with thankfulness, grace, and seeing them as a helping hand until they can get on their feet, we look at them as something we are entitled to.

Exactly. There is a huge, gaping line between gratuitous, humanitarian assistance and "entitlement."

 

[PhDeac]

Explain that line. It seems like semantics. The only difference is the degree to which someone is grateful. So if the sticking point is that she isn't writing a thank you note, that's kind of silly.

Regardless, jhmd, you've made it clear that you do not support "gratuitous, humanitarian assistance" from the government anyway, so I'm not sure about your point.

 

[Wrangor]

The difference in entitlement, and government assistance is the receivers response to the assistance. If the person is entitled to the food and clothing, then they don't make any effort to stop receiving the food and clothes, and instead keep taking the free stuff because they are entitled to it. If a person sees the food and clothing as 'assistance' they respond by trying to get to a point where they no longer need the assistance.

You have read a lot of my posts before, and you know I don't side with the status quo Republican line on welfare, however i certainly don't fall in line with the democrat either.

Like I said earlier, the fix is not easy, and it is not painless, but we need a broad based changed to our system to encourage the government to give until the need is met, and encourage people who are on assistance to truly view it as assistance, and not as an entitlement.

Once we get Republicans on board with actually addressing the real problems (opportunity, race, education) and the Democrats on board with addressing the real liabilities (you don't deserve anything) we might start making progress. The problem is that addressing the real problems requires lots and lots of money for Republicans and requires accountability for the Democratic constituents. Neither of which are popular political platforms.

 

[PhDeac]

I can agree with that except that you don't counter my "thank you note" point. The other issue is in the meantime you either deny children basic services or let them suffer. The key thing from your post is that the onus is on Republicans. You can't endorse a bootstrap philosophy then deny people bootstraps. You can't say "teach a man to fish" if you're not willing to provide programs that teach a man to fish.

The extent to which people "deserve" something is a psychological issue that public policy can't really fix. That's someone's idea of what it means to be American. For some, it means they're entitled to have basic needs met if they're unable to do so. For others, it means they're entitled to make as much money as possible with as few regulations or taxes. Public policy isn't going to change someone's mentality.

 

[jhmd2000]

Explain that line. It seems like semantics. The only difference is the degree to which someone is grateful. So if the sticking point is that she isn't writing a thank you note, that's kind of silly.

Regardless, jhmd, you've made it clear that you do not support "gratuitous, humanitarian assistance" from the government anyway, so I'm not sure about your point.

1) Easy. When you start demanding that other people solve your problems for you and insist that others be held to account for your choices, you act entitled (not to mention ignorant and even stupid). When you say "Thank you, this help is really needed and appreciated", you act grateful and perhaps less likely to sire children 13-15. You don't see a difference there?

2) I did? What's the evidence on that point? Paging Dr. Strawman...

 

[PhDeac]

Nice. You didn't bold "from the government" Who's Dr. Strawman now?

 

[jhmd2000]

Nice. You didn't bold "from the government" Who's Dr. Strawman now?

Dude...I don't know how else to say it. I don't want these kids to starve, and I've never advocated that. This woman is endangering these kids. They need to be put in a home until she gets her life in order. She's not a fit parent by any definition. There is clear authority to intervene on behalf of child safety. Juvenile Law 101.

If you want to keep defending programs that wrought this dumpster fire...have at it. Just don't delude yourself into thinking you're helping anybody.

 

[PhDeac]

That clear authority is the government. You keep stepping back over your points.

 

[OGBDeacon07]

Uh, if I could for a moment steer this back on the OP.... here's a video on the entitlement chickens (kids) coming home to roost:



ETA: I will not be thanking Exxon for the billions in profits they make every year. No, I shall not.

 

[Wrangor]

I can agree with that except that you don't counter my "thank you note" point. The other issue is in the meantime you either deny children basic services or let them suffer. The key thing from your post is that the onus is on Republicans. You can't endorse a bootstrap philosophy then deny people bootstraps. You can't say "teach a man to fish" if you're not willing to provide programs that teach a man to fish.

The extent to which people "deserve" something is a psychological issue that public policy can't really fix. That's someone's idea of what it means to be American. For some, it means they're entitled to have basic needs met if they're unable to do so. For others, it means they're entitled to make as much money as possible with as few regulations or taxes. Public policy isn't going to change someone's mentality.

I disagree that public policy isn't going to change someone's mentality. Public policy is what formed the current mentality. People are told they deserve the checks by the politicians they vote for, eventually they believe the dogma. I agree that the onus is on the Republicans to act first. Start providing the tools as you put it. The next step is on the Democrats, start developing a new system that actually works to get people off welfare instead of using the current system for votes (I get Obama's emails, and he is clearly using our current system and our personal greed to rally up votes. Republicans do the same thing, but they don't have exclusive rights to this line of thinking).

I think we agree on a lot of things, but something needs to change, someone in politics needs to be bold enough, strong enough, and smart enough to start to lead us out of these kind of messes. Our current issues are no larger than the Civil War, or than Declaring our Independence...it will take some smart, bold, ethical leaders to make headway. Obama has two of the three in my opinion. He is smart and ethical, but so far he has been timid.

 

[Wrangor]

Uh, if I could for a moment steer this back on the OP.... here's a video on the entitlement chickens (kids) coming home to roost:



ETA: I will not be thanking Exxon for the billions in profits they make every year. No, I shall not.

The guy is pretty simplistic in his presentation, but he makes some decent points. I am not sure that corporations deserve the praise he gives them, but I do like the bit about farmers .

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Uh, if I could for a moment steer this back on the OP.... here's a video on the entitlement chickens (kids) coming home to roost:



ETA: I will not be thanking Exxon for the billions in profits they make every year. No, I shall not.

That guys is really annoying.

 

[jhmd2000]

That clear authority is the government. You keep stepping back over your points.

No, I don't. We're done until you start reading what I'm writing. This is frustrating.

 

[PhDeac]

Ok then explain the role that government should play in this situation. A clear simple answer.

 

[jhmd2000]

Ok then explain the role that government should play in this situation. A clear simple answer.

I think they're doing the right thing in the last eight minutes of that clip. They've taken the kids out of that dangerous situation. THAT part is humane, legal and the only prudent course of action.

My problem is the dehumanizing regime of subsistence "entitlement" programs that created that entire mess in the first place. Government broke that family (and thousands of other single parent homes). Cleaning that particular situation up (or at least stabilizing it) doesn't address the broader culture of dependency we're cultivated.

 

[PhDeac]

OK. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Wrangor]

I think they're doing the right thing in the last eight minutes of that clip. They've taken the kids out of that dangerous situation. THAT part is humane, legal and the only prudent course of action.

My problem is the dehumanizing regime of subsistence "entitlement" programs that created that entire mess in the first place. Government broke that family (and thousands of other single parent homes). Cleaning that particular situation up (or at least stabilizing it) doesn't address the broader culture of dependency we're cultivated.

Government didn't break that family. The decision to have 12 kids broke that family. It is not the government's fault that the girl is a complete moron that lacks the ability to judge that not using birth control means that you will have a bunch of kids that you have no ability for which to provide sustenance.

 

[jhmd2000]

Government didn't break that family. The decision to have 12 kids broke that family. It is not the government's fault that the girl is a complete moron that lacks the ability to judge that not using birth control means that you will have a bunch of kids that you have no ability for which to provide sustenance.

Gov't sure as hell enabled her to have 15 kids. I've paid too many labor and delivery bills to know how much the delivery alone costs. x15? No chance.