How to Slow Firearm Deaths Without Banning All Guns

[himher 634]

exactly. i find it disgusting, these mega churches. however-i don't think that the majority of missionaries are "on vacation". they are genuinely trying to improve people's lives - i just wish they would focus on the hurting in the u.s. first and foremost. honestly - with all the churches in this country - they should be able to pull off both.

generally speaking, public parks employ people to do these jobs already.

Generally speaking public parks and agencies employ people to do a lot of things that people who are already paid from public budgets can do.

[decocker 7,198]

The combination of recieved programs constitutes a living wage if they are housed, fed, and have their medical care covered and paid for.

again, the objective is not to create a permanent underclass, as we have now. you have to stay poor to earn that 'living wage'. there is no inbetween. do people normally skyrocket from poverty to middle class? you're putting the cart before the horse.

and you're also operating under the assumption that the people who benefit from the sort of programs i suggested, would not go on to function independently and in turn continue to better their community and families.

[himher 634]

again, the objective is not to create a permanent underclass, as we have now. you have to stay poor to earn that 'living wage'. there is no inbetween. do people normally skyrocket from poverty to middle class? you're putting the cart before the horse.

and you're also operating under the assumption that the people who benefit from the sort of programs i suggested, would not go on to function independently and in turn continue to better their community and families.

Viewing with hindsight I would venture, objective of the programs aside, that the permanent underclass has long since been created and is now on its third / fourth generation.

The thought was to impose a requirement on this permanent underclass to earn what they get regardless of their desire to function independently. It is a hard fact that when something has to be worked for and earned there is an ingrained tendency to look for ways to trade the work that one is doing for something better.

Bonus: Anyone who wants a better job or has a job or has applied for a job knows that work experience adds value in the eyes of the next employer. I'm operating under the assumption that work adds value to the PERSON and that it is this added value that moves that person closer to independent function.

It appears however and that you are operating under the assumption that people move from one place in life to a better place or receive an education or get a job or attract business by some sort of natural osmosis.

Edited March 15, 2013 by himher

[decocker 7,198]

Viewing with hindsight I would venture, objective of the programs aside, that the permanent underclass has long since been created and is now on its third / fourth generation.

The thought was to impose a requirement on this permanent underclass to earn what they get regardless of their desire to function independently. It is a hard fact that when something has to be worked for and earned there is an ingrained tendency to look for ways to trade the work that one is doing for something better.

Bonus: Anyone who wants a better job or has a job or has applied for a job knows that work experience adds value in the eyes of the next employer. I'm operating under the assumption that work adds value to the PERSON and that it is this added value that moves that person closer to independent function.

It appears however and that you are operating under the assumption that people move from one place in life to a better place or receive an education or get a job or attract business by some sort of natural osmosis.

i don't disagree with anything you've said here, except the last bit. i am not at all of that assumption. i am a worker. i am self sufficient because of my work. i do, however, recognize the privilege i was born into. not privilege meaning my family is rich - we aren't, we'll probably always be paycheck to paycheck workers. as you said we're on our 'third / fourth generation'. an unprivileged underclass. the majority of them only need the opportunity to find out that work and self sufficiency is its own reward. they haven't had it yet.

[Danno 1,228]

i don't disagree with anything you've said here, except the last bit. i am not at all of that assumption. i am a worker. i am self sufficient because of my work. i do, however, recognize the privilege i was born into. not privilege meaning my family is rich - we aren't, we'll probably always be paycheck to paycheck workers. as you said we're on our 'third / fourth generation'. an unprivileged underclass. the majority of them only need the opportunity to find out that work and self sufficiency is its own reward. they haven't had it yet.

Are you assuming that all people would get up and go to work if they could get by without having to?

I can tell you, this drive is in a lot of people but a lot of people will not only milk whatever system there is to milk but eventually feel they are entitled to it.

And I am not talking about Blacks either, this is true for any culture anywhere.

The biggest deterrent is your upbringing.

Right now it is becoming more and more acceptable to "sign up" I know a number of middle class whites who think nothing of it are not even embarrassed to tell you.

Trust me if I ever took welfare, I would never admit it to my family. But those social norms are fading fast.

Polling shows peoples views on taking public assistance has dramatically changed.

Bottom line- The war on poverty has not only destroyed the social fabric of the poor, it is now grafting into it's web the lower-middle class.

[decocker 7,198]

Are you assuming that all people would get up and go to work if they could get by without having to?

of course not. you're reaching.

Trust me if I ever took welfare, I would never admit it to my family. But those social norms are fading fast.

there is a certain level of pride associated with providing for your family isn't there. and a certain level of shame when you cannot.

interesting.

[Danno 1,228]

of course not. you're reaching.

there is a certain level of pride associated with providing for your family isn't there. and a certain level of shame when you cannot.

interesting.

People who sell drugs for a living or rob liquor stores will tell you they are "providing for their families."

The single Mother who is raising her kids on welfare feels she is providing for her kids.

There is no public shame in accepting public assistance. and I am not saying there should be in some cases

but a little humility might be nice.

[himher 634]

I am not sure that a person who believes that this is something that they are "entitled" to because these are "entitlements" is capable of either humility or gratitude for what they receive. I believe that most people who work for their paycheck and what they have (even if sometimes they hate their job) are at a minimum grateful for it. We have allowed creation of support systems that are set up in such a way as to develop attitudes of entitlement and yes even resentment between the recipients and those who go to work and pay for them with a net result of "Vote for Revenge" for those who collect them from the working and producing people and "We will not enforce the laws to protect you if we cannot collect what we went from you" from those they vote for.

"It is indeed difficult to imagine how men who have entirely renounced the habit of managing their own affairs could be successful in choosing those who ought to lead them. It is impossible to believe that a liberal, energetic, and wise government can ever emerge from the ballots of a nation of servants.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Alexis de Tocqueville 1805-1859

I am not sure if failure to support yourself and your family and pay taxes to support your government and community entitles you to the right to vote for ways to not have to do it.

People who sell drugs for a living or rob liquor stores will tell you they are "providing for their families."

The single Mother who is raising her kids on welfare feels she is providing for her kids.

There is no public shame in accepting public assistance. and I am not saying there should be in some cases

but a little humility might be nice.

Edited March 16, 2013 by himher

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

i don't disagree with anything you've said here, except the last bit. i am not at all of that assumption. i am a worker. i am self sufficient because of my work. i do, however, recognize the privilege i was born into. not privilege meaning my family is rich - we aren't, we'll probably always be paycheck to paycheck workers. as you said we're on our 'third / fourth generation'. an unprivileged underclass. the majority of them only need the opportunity to find out that work and self sufficiency is its own reward. they haven't had it yet.

Oh dear lord.... You are like an AWOL marine..... Way off base

[himher 634]

of course not. you're reaching.

there is a certain level of pride associated with providing for your family isn't there. and a certain level of shame when you cannot.

interesting.

I believe that people do and will go to work if that is what it takes to earn the basic necessities and I believe that there is no incentive for people to make any effort to do so if the basic necessities are provided to them with no strings attached.

What is shameful to those who believe that what they have should be earned is not shameful at all to those who believe that they are entitled to receive what they need.

Edited March 16, 2013 by himher

[Danno 1,228]

"The lessons of history….. show conclusively the continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally

destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

FDR - State of the Union Address