Good Parenting vs Welfare

Why is it that when a relatively wealthy set of parents makes sure their child always has enough food to eat, always has health insurance, pays for their child's education, help him pay rent through college, gets him a reliable car, and a little money left over to have some fun on the weekends it's good parenting?

But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

MrWonka said:

Why is it that when a relatively wealthy set of parents makes sure their child always has enough food to eat, always has health insurance, pays for their child's education, help him pay rent through college, gets him a reliable car, and a little money left over to have some fun on the weekends it's good parenting?

But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

Click to expand...

This society despite all its lofty rhetoric has always had its own caste system.

MrWonka said:

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

Click to expand...

Yes, it was. Whilst I obviously don't condone poverty, I generally think it's a good thing if people know what it's like to struggle, rather than coasting comfortably through life. I think the U.S. is on the whole much better run when the President has experienced serious barriers to success - makes them more empathetic.

OP,
Your example is not true for all "relatively wealthy set of parents" that they give their child everything. Who is calling it good parenting? You have a source for that?

Some "relatively wealthy" parents do not give their children everything. They instill a work ethic and have them work and save so as to help or pay for college.

Not sure how to respond to your "But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?" Seems that is more of a personal opinion than a majority opinion of the public. Reason I say that is you focused on the "young people" rather than the parents.

Let me ask you. Should a couple or single women have multiple children if they cannot afford to feed and shelter themselves or one offspring?

MrWonka said:

Why is it that when a relatively wealthy set of parents makes sure their child always has enough food to eat, always has health insurance, pays for their child's education, help him pay rent through college, gets him a reliable car, and a little money left over to have some fun on the weekends it's good parenting?

But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

Click to expand...

The idea is that if an adult needs government assistance it's because they are lazy or irresponsible. And, in many cases, that is true. But in many other cases it is not. The trick is being able to tell who needs it and who merely wants it.

MrWonka said:

Why is it that when a relatively wealthy set of parents makes sure their child always has enough food to eat, always has health insurance, pays for their child's education, help him pay rent through college, gets him a reliable car, and a little money left over to have some fun on the weekends it's good parenting?

But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

Click to expand...

Parents usually have expectations on children, so it's not exactly free.

MrWonka said:

Why is it that when a relatively wealthy set of parents makes sure their child always has enough food to eat, always has health insurance, pays for their child's education, help him pay rent through college, gets him a reliable car, and a little money left over to have some fun on the weekends it's good parenting?

But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

Click to expand...

One is acting responsibly for one's own offspring, the other is depending on the involuntary contributions of others who have no specific interest in the welfare of the recipient...

How is this confusing?

The government... is not a parent. The fact that a parent cannot adequately provide for their own offspring is the directly comparable situation to a successful parent providing for their own offspring. The government only steps in when the REAL parent has failed, and taxpayer money is used to provide food and shelter for the WELFARE of the recipient. In short, welfare is bad because it reinforces the concept that success is optional, which makes working toward success optional, which results in less motivation for children to grow up to be productive members of society. The very existence of welfare is contingent upon individual failure, and many believe that its widespread use may contribute to the perpetuation of such failure.

There will always be unpreventable circumstances that result in otherwise successful people being temporarily vulnerable, and these situations are not what most people are really discussing when they say welfare is bad. They are talking about a perpetual state of dependence upon government support, which I can definitively state, does exist for some able-bodied individuals who CHOOSE not to pursue gainful employment.

MrWonka said:

Why is it that when a relatively wealthy set of parents makes sure their child always has enough food to eat, always has health insurance, pays for their child's education, help him pay rent through college, gets him a reliable car, and a little money left over to have some fun on the weekends it's good parenting?

But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Trump, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney...... Was all the money their parents gave to them early on in their lives bad for them?

Click to expand...

People that aren't willing to do all that for them are irresponsible and shouldn't keep the children they put into the world.

Slyfox696 said:

The idea is that if an adult needs government assistance it's because they are lazy or irresponsible. And, in many cases, that is true. But in many other cases it is not. The trick is being able to tell who needs it and who merely wants it.

Click to expand...

But, if you know, what do you want to do about it?

MrWonka said:

if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?

Click to expand...

Because "government" is not a person who voluntarily does something.
Welfare via Government means the government takes money from our paycheck via force and gives it to these causes / advantages.
Welfare via charity means that people donate voluntarily to help fund those causes / advantages.
A parent does this through their own work and doesn't ask their neighbors to help.

I am not saying that this is bad for the people receiving it. Sometimes welfare is a great thing for people who can't otherwise support themselves.
How rich / poor a welfare program should be is the stuff of good debates.

Nothing is free, and when you hear "government" you should think about how you can contribute and not force others to do so. Forcing all to do something they don't want to do is going to cause friction with voters / neighbors.

mike2810 said:

OP,
Your example is not true for all "relatively wealthy set of parents" that they give their child everything. Who is calling it good parenting? You have a source for that?

Some "relatively wealthy" parents do not give their children everything. They instill a work ethic and have them work and save so as to help or pay for college.

Not sure how to respond to your "But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?" Seems that is more of a personal opinion than a majority opinion of the public. Reason I say that is you focused on the "young people" rather than the parents.

Let me ask you. Should a couple or single women have multiple children if they cannot afford to feed and shelter themselves or one offspring?

Click to expand...

Get real, no kid "saves up" for college at this point.

boredatwork said:

Because "government" is not a person who voluntarily does something.
Welfare via Government means the government takes money from our paycheck via force and gives it to these causes / advantages.
Welfare via charity means that people donate voluntarily to help fund those causes / advantages.
A parent does this through their own work and doesn't ask their neighbors to help.

I am not saying that this is bad for the people receiving it. Sometimes welfare is a great thing for people who can't otherwise support themselves.
How rich / poor a welfare program should be is the stuff of good debates.

Nothing is free, and when you hear "government" you should think about how you can contribute and not force others to do so. Forcing all to do something they don't want to do is going to cause friction with voters / neighbors.

Click to expand...

Welfare via Government means the government takes money from our paycheck via force and gives it to these causes / advantages outside the usual corporate welfare paradigm. The fact the folks are aware of how things work in america is an inherent understanding that nothing is free for the people, that's only for the aristocracy.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

Harbo said:

Yes, it was. Whilst I obviously don't condone poverty, I generally think it's a good thing if people know what it's like to struggle, rather than coasting comfortably through life. I think the U.S. is on the whole much better run when the President has experienced serious barriers to success - makes them more empathetic.

Click to expand...

Like Obama and Clinton... obviously.

Fenton Lum said:

Get real, no kid "saves up" for college at this point.

Click to expand...

Then that is a problem, isn't it?

Glad my kid is grown.

tomkat364 said:

They are talking about a perpetual state of dependence upon government support, which I can definitively state, does exist for some able-bodied individuals who CHOOSE not to pursue gainful employment.

Click to expand...

This was addressed with the The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families law passed by Congress in 1996. Look it up.

Slyfox696 said:

The idea is that if an adult needs government assistance it's because they are lazy or irresponsible. And, in many cases, that is true. But in many other cases it is not. The trick is being able to tell who needs it and who merely wants it.

Click to expand...

And those who really need it we should do better at taking care of than we do and those who are lazy irresponsible bums should be thrown off so that we can take care of the others better.

RickJames3000 said:

Like Obama and Clinton... obviously.

Click to expand...

It's bipartisan, obviously not obvious to too many americans.

Moderate Right said:

And those who really need it we should do better at taking care of than we do and those who are lazy irresponsible bums should be thrown off so that we can take care of the others better.

Click to expand...

Like the Koch brothers who graze their cattle operation in MT on subsidized rates.

Harbo said:

Yes, it was. Whilst I obviously don't condone poverty, I generally think it's a good thing if people know what it's like to struggle, rather than coasting comfortably through life. I think the U.S. is on the whole much better run when the President has experienced serious barriers to success - makes them more empathetic.

Click to expand...

I will agree with that in the sense that a person who is going to rule over an entire country made up mostly of middle class and lower income people should have an understanding of what it feels like to be one of those people.

But that's not really the question. Was the money their parents gave them bad for them the individuals. Did they become bad people because of it? Did they lose motivation to work? I mean granted Trump is a ****ty human being, and Bush and Romney aren't exactly super people, but I don't think you could claim it's because his parents bought him things.

Fenton Lum said:

It's bipartisan, obviously not obvious to too many americans.

Click to expand...

OK, if it's "obviously bipartisan", then cite the GOP presidents of the last 30 years that fit the description..."experienced serious barriers to success".
I'll wait.

We need to accept that people who make mistakes or poor choices or have bad luck are not going away, and are frequently resistant to changing themselves.

Then we get to decide how we want to handle them.

It's a balancing act to try to get the most benefit without too much waste and abuse, but I don't think there's much actual support for completely eliminating all assistance of this type.

mike2810 said:

Some "relatively wealthy" parents do not give their children everything.

Click to expand...

They may not give them everything, but they also do not let them starve to death or go without a roof over their head, or proper medical care do they?

mike2810 said:

Not sure how to respond to your "But if the government tries to help young people without those advantages get something close it's called welfare, and attacked as if it's bad for the people receiving it?" Seems that is more of a personal opinion than a majority opinion of the public.

Click to expand...

It does seem to be the majority opinion of Republicans. Whenever they go off on their idiotic rants about drug testing welfare recipients they always seem to conveniently forget that the vast majority of people on welfare are single parents, and that forcing them to work, would likely cost them more than they'd make.

mike2810 said:

Let me ask you. Should a couple or single women have multiple children if they cannot afford to feed and shelter themselves or one offspring?

Click to expand...

No, they shouldn't, but you can't undo what is already done, and having welfare, and food stamps available does not in anyway motivate a woman to get herself into that situation. Contrary to what many Republicans would like to believe nobody wants to be a single mother. At least not when they're a poor teenage girl that can't afford it. If you really don't want women to end up in that situation the best way to reduce it is to make birth control, abortion, and good sexual education readily available.

Conservatives are a bigger cause of the single woman problem than the women themselves are. Young people make mistakes. That's GOING to happen. We don't try teenage criminals as adults for a reason, and making it harder for them to make better choices for themselves exacerbates that problem.

A child cannot choose to be born to a poor parent. Regardless of what you might like to think about that parent, blaming the child for their parents actions is idiotic. 97% of children who are raised on Welfare never take a dime of it as adults. It is not an epidemic that feeds itself. It is the right thing to do in order to make sure the kids do not end up repeating the same mistakes their parents made.

Slyfox696 said:

The idea is that if an adult needs government assistance it's because they are lazy or irresponsible. And, in many cases, that is true. But in many other cases it is not. The trick is being able to tell who needs it and who merely wants it.

Click to expand...

And if we're going to make a mistake on that is it better to accidentally allow someone to starve that truly needed the help, or is it better to accidentally give someone assistance that could have probably figured out their own **** if necessary?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Parents usually have expectations on children, so it's not exactly free.

Click to expand...

So what? You think that there are a lot of parents that won't feed their children if they get bad grades or something?

Obviously there's a point where you might have to consider cutting a child off if they're just not take any initiative on their own, but I'm willing to bet that that point for most parents is much harder to reach than it seems to be with most conservatives and those who need welfare assistance.

Fenton Lum said:

Welfare via Government means the government takes money from our paycheck via force and gives it to these causes / advantages outside the usual corporate welfare paradigm. The fact the folks are aware of how things work in america is an inherent understanding that nothing is free for the people, that's only for the aristocracy.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you.
For the mega businesses who take welfare, we the people still pay taxes they benefit from. Those businesses profit from our expenses and keep their profits for their shareholders.
I can think of no better example than Tesla. I found it funny when Elon Musk decided to withhold any counseling for the WH becuase he dropped the Paris accord. He stands to lose a lot of profits as soon as the welfare dries up for consumers who buy his products.