Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-23-2016, 10:31 PM
 
366 posts, read 490,424 times
Reputation: 751

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
You know what is pathetic? A lot of our Military serving now aren't paid enough that so many are on FOOD STAMPS themselves!
I don't know, what I find pathetic is the pay scales are posted and available so you know what you will make before you enlist. If you cannot live on that, do not enlist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2016, 11:54 PM
 
13,293 posts, read 9,826,087 times
Reputation: 14262
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5 View Post
Look, I don't know what to tell you. Reality is sometimes harsh, and life isn't always fair. People get handed bad lots in life, and they die. We just can't feed everybody, all the time, forever. It's just not possible. Unicorns don't exist, no matter how wonderful they are and how much you want them to. "My" survival of the fittest world is the one we live in, and there's nothing you or I can do to change that, it's just how it is.


Of course I'm not saying charitable efforts should be discouraged, or we should get rid of Special Education, or stop looking to cure cancer. Those are great things to do. What I'm telling you is that all the charity in the world won't cure poverty. All the Special Education in the world won't turn a child with learning disabilities into a brain surgeon. We could cure cancer, but then some other disease will crop up and start killing us. We do the best we can, but don't fool yourself into thinking that if we all just try a little harder, then the problem can be solved once and for all. It can't. It can be made a little better, but that's about it.


What I'm trying to say, is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Programs for feeding children are great. But if you start to go overboard with the programs, and to make sure every single kid out there gets every single calorie he needs, then they are going to create even more kids who need food handed to them and we then feed them and they create even more, and you WILL get to a point where trying to feed all the kids is HURTING the rest of us to the point where you are doing more damage than good. That's what we're trying to avoid.


When you are looking at programs to help those in need, it's very easy to only look at the "need" side. This is what they "need", so this is what the program should be. People often forget to look at the other side, the "what can we afford to give without shooting ourselves in the foot" side. And in this country, if you look at the ratio of the national debt to GDP, (104% in 2015) it's very very glaringly obvious that we have reached the point where if we do any more than we are already doing, we are absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot. We may have gone past it already.


Edited to add: in case you don't know what a 104% debt to GDP ratio means, let me explain it real quick. If every American paid in taxes 100% of their income for a whole year, as in every single cent you and everyone earned went to the government all year long, including all the Richie rich 1 percenters, we still wouldn't pay off the national debt. And why is that important? About half of it is retirement funds for Americans. Social security and pensions, that can't be paid out unless that debt gets paid. And as our debt grows, our interest payments grow, and eventually our entire revenue will be eaten up by interest payments. We are in it up to our eyeballs, and that's a fact.
I'm assuming brain surgeon is a euphemism for very smart person.

And your implication is that people with Learning Disabilities will never be successful on a smart person's level.

I'm sure Steve Jobs would beg to differ. Richard Branson, Tommy Hilfiger. Leonardo Di Vinci, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford. Erin Brockovitch, Muhammad Ali. Justin Timberlake, Michael Phelps, Steven Spielberg.

Given that you are really, really wrong about that - I have a hard time taking the rest of your post seriously.

There is enough food thrown out at the end of day from grocery stores and restaurants - let alone food thrown away because of a cosmetic blemish - to feed every child in America that needs it. To say that we don't have enough food in this country is nonsense.

It's lack of education that breeds poverty. Lack of education and opportunity. Lack of knowledge and understanding that you don't have to live that way that you can get out, that opportunities aren't just for other people, that you don't have to have a baby to have self worth. That you can be a brain surgeon even with a learning disability. None of this is going to matter if you're living under a bridge eating out of a dumpster.

If parents are unable to provide these basic needs then we must. Kids are learners by default. Little kids don't know they're doomed for failure. At some point in their lives they are let down by the adults around them, and I don't just mean their parents. I truly do not believe that one is stuck in their station in life.

What you are describing is a kind of Caste system. People are not destined to never rise above. However, if they're hungry, if their parents are addicted and cannot get treatment, if their schools are crumbling and no one gives a rats, if their house and water supplies are riddled with lead and neurotoxins then yeah you're going to see generational poverty. You're going to see anger and bitterness and self-loathing. People have plenty of determination and grit, it just ends up channeled into destructive activity.

There are Western nations where the kind of poverty you see in America simply doesn't exist. If I'd have grown up here, that would have been me you're talking about. It can be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:17 AM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
5,511 posts, read 4,445,596 times
Reputation: 5764
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5 View Post
Mother Nature controls populations so that they don't get too big. When food starts to get scarce, then the weaker animals starve and die, while the stronger ones get the food and live. In this way, the stronger survives and the species evolves.

While emotionally I will always try to help make sure kids have enough to eat, intellectually I know that it is bad for the human race to do so. Survival of the fittest means I should accept that those who cannot provide for their offspring should not propagate the gene pool. When we feed the children of those who cannot acquire adequate resources, we are essentially de-evolving the species. Damaging humankind.

It's a painful thought. Unfortunately, until humans get off this planet, getting enough food is a zero-sum game. Everyone can't win. But everyone CAN lose, which is what we're doing.
While there isn't anything wrong with this on one level, then we really need to push to get rid of other services like 911, ERs, police, firefighting... those should be survival of the fittest too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:41 AM
 
2,294 posts, read 2,769,326 times
Reputation: 3852
Quote:
Originally Posted by ackmondual View Post
While there isn't anything wrong with this on one level, then we really need to push to get rid of other services like 911, ERs, police, firefighting... those should be survival of the fittest too.
Pointing this out from a strictly technical perspective, you could easily argue that those people who pay taxes are providing protection for themselves in the form of those services, much the same way that someone who pays for groceries is providing food.

A better analogy would probably be saying that we should get rid of cop protection for homeless people and ER's for those who can't afford it. Not arguing in favor of those per se, just pointing out that it's not quite apples to apples to say dismissing is comparable to letting those who can't afford food die.

Put another way, this example of getting rid of all services would be like saying that anyone who can't farm their own food themselves should die. The previous point didn't go that far, just far enough to say those who can't obtain food shouldn't be supported.

As for the ethics of any of those... I'll leave that to the debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:42 AM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
5,511 posts, read 4,445,596 times
Reputation: 5764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy in Nokomis View Post
What bothers me is that many people have no shame. Where is the shame not working and accepting handouts?

I think people should be required to work for their welfare benefits - maybe a government program working on our infrastructure - people need to realize life is not fair - you can be born into a poor family or a rich family and that determines your life - its not fair but that's the way it is - unless you work your way up by hook and by crook - not fun - not easy -

Birth control is also free for the poor - why are they still having kids? You should not have kids if you cannot afford them. Having 5 or more kids is only for the rich nowadays.
Heh... care to volunteer to drive across a bridge that these welfare folks just fixed up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 01:00 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,744 posts, read 25,946,548 times
Reputation: 33849
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5 View Post
Mother Nature controls populations so that they don't get too big. When food starts to get scarce, then the weaker animals starve and die, while the stronger ones get the food and live. In this way, the stronger survives and the species evolves.

While emotionally I will always try to help make sure kids have enough to eat, intellectually I know that it is bad for the human race to do so. Survival of the fittest means I should accept that those who cannot provide for their offspring should not propagate the gene pool. When we feed the children of those who cannot acquire adequate resources, we are essentially de-evolving the species. Damaging humankind.

It's a painful thought. Unfortunately, until humans get off this planet, getting enough food is a zero-sum game. Everyone can't win. But everyone CAN lose, which is what we're doing.
Are you serious, this is not the African savannah with lions stalking antelope, we live in complex societies and if you tried to control population by restricting food to the poor, after a few wealthy people got beat up, killed or robbed for their food, it's quite likely that we would have a collective 'epiphany' and suddenly decide that food stamps are a grand idea. Certainly we help the poor because we have always had a social compact of helping those who can't help themselves, but we also hand out food and money to protect the "haves" from the "have nots" because when you take too much away from the poor they aren't going to gently lie down on the sidewalk and die, they are going to take what they need to survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 02:07 AM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
1,059 posts, read 825,684 times
Reputation: 1716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
And that's the way it works. Illegals are not eligible for welfare benefits, including SNAP. Next?
Ah, but the illegal aliens' anchor babies ARE US citizens and entitled to all benefits of a legal US citizen: WIC, Snap, Welfare, free health insurance, education, ad nauseam.

I do not have children, nor do my brother and sister, both of whom went to private schools, yet we are required to support others' children through school, etc. Where is the fairness for us and others in the same circumstances? Even more outrageous is our tax dollars are spent on illegal aliens when our own citizen taxpayers need help, such as the elderly and disabled?

If parents cannot afford children, then they should not have children. It is their responsibility to support their offspring, not the taxpayers. Then there are the single women and teen-agers who choose to become pregnant with nary a thought as to the cost and work of raising a child. Unforeseen complications come up, I know, but again, that is not our problem. There are many, many charitable organizations that receive voluntary donations. Those are there to help out the needy.

Welfare has always been meant as a temporary stop-gap, not a generational way of life. What a kerfuffle, and it will only continue to get worse.

Last edited by Annie1004; 06-24-2016 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 02:23 AM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
1,059 posts, read 825,684 times
Reputation: 1716
Steve Jobs, and the other notables listed in the post above, had learning disabilities? That's a new one. Please provide links (and not Wikipedia) to back up your assertions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 02:29 AM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 4,218,609 times
Reputation: 8515
The best compromise would be to combine all welfare programs into one, much more efficient, with a tiny fraction of the bureaucracy. What makes welfare so bloated and wasteful is how many different programs there are.

People don't like projects because they don't work very well. But that's because they aren't designed to work very well. They need a lot more security and a lot less paperwork. Poor people should be able to rely on going home to their projects and being safe from crime there. All other welfare programs should be merged into projects. We could probably save most of our present welfare expenditures and still provide more overall welfare than we do now, by simply doing it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 08:19 AM
 
13,293 posts, read 9,826,087 times
Reputation: 14262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie1004 View Post
Steve Jobs, and the other notables listed in the post above, had learning disabilities? That's a new one. Please provide links (and not Wikipedia) to back up your assertions.
Yes. Some had dyslexia, some had ADHD and dyslexia, some had dysgraphia. Or combinations thereof.

Quote:
Did you know that many of the world’s most successful CEOs turned their learning disabilities into learning opportunities? Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple; Ingvar Kamprad, founder of Ikea; and Bill Hewlett, co-founder of Hewlett Packard each discuss how they overcame their dyslexia in the Business Insider photo article, “15 Successful CEO’s with Learning Disabilities.” Learn how these business mavericks embraced their dyslexia as a positive asset. To seek other resources pertaining to various aspects of learning disabilities, visit the LD Resources blog.
Success Stories: CEOs with Dyslexia | Dyslexia Help at the University of Michigan

(I hope the University Of Michigan passes muster for you as a source. Let me know - if not this is well documented and I'll find you plenty of other cites.)

A learning disability often makes for a more visionary, innovative CEO

5 Famous Scientists With Disabilities Who Shaped Our World

An Index of Successful Dyslexics * The Yale Center for Dyslexia & Creativity

25 Famous People with Learning Disorders | Special Education Degrees
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top