Do you agree with Obama that we wouldn't be a great country without social programs?

Re: Do you agree with Obama that we wouldn't be a great country without social progra

Kali said:

Well in a perfect world the Baby Daddy would be around. But wake up-they are not even around and marriage? That is such a joke. You think if these dead beat dads are not stepping up the plate they gonna get married? HA! Not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

If the girls would keep their legs closed it would help as well.

Kali said:

We will have to disagree because I am sure there are so many programs out here that people do not know about and guess what? The gov likes it that way as the less the poor take advantage of these programs the more money it saves them.

Click to expand...

That is a lame excuse Kali. Anyone with a phone or a trip to the unemployment office can find these programs. Last I heard the buses and phones still worked.

Kali said:

I would not doubt that social workers are told not to tell folks about certain programs unless they are asked about them. Too much digging when the poor should get a huge book about any and all help that is out here for them as soon as they seek welfare.

Click to expand...

Nice assumption, it is based based on?

Re: Do you agree with Obama that we wouldn't be a great country without social progra

TheDemSocialist said:

Didnt laissez faire capitalism fail with little to no social programs?

Click to expand...

didn't fail the ambitious and industrious

Re: Do you agree with Obama that we wouldn't be a great country without social progra

TheDemSocialist said:

Didnt laissez faire capitalism fail with little to no social programs?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's ever been tried, but don't see why it would fail without social programs. I guess it depends on how you define or what you consider failure.

Re: Do you agree with Obama that we wouldn't be a great country without social progra

Kali said:

Well in a perfect world the Baby Daddy would be around. But wake up-they are not even around and marriage? That is such a joke. You think if these dead beat dads are not stepping up the plate they gonna get married?

Click to expand...

the rate of illigetimacy among our poor inner city populations used to be lower than our middle-class white one. it wasn't until we saw the implementation of government programs that incentivized poor people not getting married that we began to see a sharp rise in their rates of single parenthood. In addition, we saw the rise of a popular "countercultural" movement that deemphasized traditional family structure, and sought to remove the 'non-fiscal' "social" incentives (shame, peer pressure, active popular support for marriage, etc) that had acted as a break against the new fiscal incentives to raise children outside of wedlock. illigetimacy is not intrinsic to our society; it is a biproduct of failed policy and failed social theories. switching those back will not solve the problem overnight (nothing will), but it will start us moving back in the right direction.

We will have to disagree because I am sure there are so many programs out here that people do not know about and guess what? The gov likes it that way as the less the poor take advantage of these programs the more money it saves them.

Click to expand...

"The Government" is not a single entity that can be described. Perhaps the Federal Government does if it saves it money; but States currently see matching (or increased) Federal funds in return for enrolling people on aid programs. So currently State officials are able to "get" $3 of welfare spending for every $1 that they spend - in turn creating a solid bloc constituency to support their reelection. So the incentives for Federal agents are split (do you want to save money or claim credit for 'helping the poor'), whereas the incentives for State agents are heavily tilted towards enrolling as many as possible in order to get that "free" federal money.

I would not doubt that social workers are told not to tell folks about certain programs unless they are asked about them

Click to expand...

social workers generally work in fusion products with the Federal, State, and Local governments. which ones do you think are telling them not to inform the poor about available programs and what is your evidence that this is happening? Given that "advocacy" groups have been forced to seek liberalization of benefits in order to continue to justify their existance (and dues) rather than maximization of enrollment in current benefits, it seems that all the available signals we are recieving indicates that you are incorrect.

Too much digging when the poor should get a huge book about any and all help that is out here for them as soon as they seek welfare.

Click to expand...

which they would be able to read? our inner-city poor have schools that are so far beyond substandard as to make it worth questioning whether or not they deserve first world status. our "welfare" system is a labyrinth of competing, overlapping, mutually exclusive, reinforcing, irreconcilable Federal, State, and Local entitlements. I highly doubt that anyone could create a single product that covers them in their entirety in such a manner as to make the subject matter approachable.

Re: Do you agree with Obama that we wouldn't be a great country without social progra

CPWill said:

the rate of illigetimacy among our poor inner city populations used to be lower than our middle-class white one. it wasn't until we saw the implementation of government programs that incentivized poor people not getting married that we began to see a sharp rise in their rates of single parenthood.

Click to expand...

CP I think you're making a causal relationship error. A study would like find things much more complex than you would like them to be.