Re: Help "in kind" instead of cash

On Aug 3, 11:08 am, Jill <aske...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:28:25 -0700,





patrick.bar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 2, 1:56 pm, Jill <aske...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:37:03 -0700,

patrick.bar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 30, 6:41 pm, Jill <aske...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:28:34 -0700,

patrick.bar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:56 am, "dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So if you're really looking to help someone, the answer isn't money or
food. The real help is taking them to a community center to get
treated for addiction.

How are you going to make them do that?

You can't make them do it, nor would I advocate doing that even if you
could. What you can do is provide the opportunity. I support helping
people. I do not support socialism, but I support investing money
into turning down and out individuals into productive members of
society. Call it "lifestyle insurance" -- if you really hit the skids
bad, rock bottom, you can get a leg up and get back on the right track
again.

There was a time in the past where I lost my wife, my job, my car.
When I was about to lose my apartment too, my mother let me move into
her basement and I spent a year rebuilding my life. Now several years
later I am re-employed in my field of choice, re-married, and back to
where I was before disaster struck. But there are a thousand other
guys out there just like me who didn't have a relative willing or able
to do that for them. A lot of those guys are probably criminals and
bums not due to any innate problems, but just due to lack of
opportunity to become anything else in this society where it takes a
dollar to make a dollar.

So I do not buy the argument that disadvantaged people are just lazy.

That's a nice little strawman you erected. Unfortunately for you I
never made the "argument" that disadvantaged people are "just lazy."

I erected no strawman. You asked me how I would make people get
treatment. I used the question as a springboard to write about some
of my views on the subject in this thread. Nothing beyond the first
couple sentences was specifically directed to you.

Clearly many of them are just lazy or on booze or on drugs but that is
beside the point I was making in the parts of my post you deleted.

In reality I made the *exact* same argument that you made above. In
your case, *your mother* took you in. Like you, I once made a very
bad "love" choice in which I lost my job (to move to a distant state
with my then fiance), I sold my car, sold my furniture, and lost all
of my savings in the move there and back. PLUS I had a 3 year old
child to take care of.

My mother, like yours, let me move back home with my child. Unlike
you, it only took me 4 months to get on my feet even with only a new
low paying job .

Not sure why you felt the need to put that "unlike you" in there. If
it was just to be nasty, then it was a pretty cheap shot.

Touchy, touchy. I used the comment as a springboard to write about
some of my views on the subject in this thread. Nothing beyond the
first couple of words were specifically directed to you. Sound
familiar?

You are very transparent, Patrick.







Without any further handouts from mom, I got into my
own apartment, bought used furniture and a used car. I am to this day
very grateful to my mother for her help. Today my now grown daughter
has moved back with me in order to finish her college education
because she couldn't make the rent and go to school full time.

I don't ask other people to do things I haven't done myself.

The point? The point was in the stuff I said that you snipped out.
*FAMILY* in the past (BW--Before Welfare) helped one another out. Not
just Mom and Dad but Grandma, Grandpa, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins,
Brothers, Sisters, etc.

Well, again, I was just using your question to me as a starting point
to expand on my views. So my not quoting the first part of what you
said was simply due to the fact that I wasn't responding to it. \

Except that you were--as you've already demonstrated despite your
protests to the contrary. The more you protest, the more you look
dishonest.

It
was not meant to hide your point so that I could then pretend you
never said it. That's a Hyerdahl thing to do and I don't do that.

Except when you do.







"Home is the place where when you have to go there, they have to take
you in." Robert Frost

Of course these days everyone is all about themselves and since there
are a multitude of freebie social programs out there, family no longer
"has to" take you in. However, churches are available to help those
who are down and out including men. You don't have to be a member or
even religious to receive their help. There are other private
charities that can help with job searches, clothing, food, etc.

But nothing like on the massive scale that would be necessary to make
a real difference nationwide. You and I are both proof that you can
pick somebody up out of the gutter and turn that person into a
contributing member of society.

"Somebody" didn't pick me up out of the gutter and turn me into a
contributing member of society. I did that myself with a little help
from my mother. While I followed my mother's own exceptional example
on picking oneself up when they are down on their luck, she really
didn't do anything more for me than provide a roof and meals--and that
great example.

Other than that she did not get me my new job, nor did she pay the
rent on my apartment, nor did she buy my car or my furniture. I did
those things myself and when I moved out 4 months later, my mother
repeatedly said there was no need for me to leave her home so soon.
There was a need for me to do so, however. I had pride and desired my
own independence. Most importantly I didn't feel right leeching off of
my mother indefinitely.

So...apparently you are speaking above strictly from your own
experience and if so, speak only for yourself. I am proud of how I
handled myself in a dreadful and dire point in my life and have no
desire to allow you or anyone else to water down my accomplishments.

There is no great talent in doing something like picking oneself up
and starting all over again nor does the fact that I did it confer
that I have superior genes or a superior family. But it is always
much easier to just stick one's hand into the community tax till and
then whine all day about how hard life is and despite your alluding to
those who can't work, most of them can.

But it takes weeks or months to do,
and takes more than a night in homeless shelter or a meal in a soup
kitchen. It takes ongoing support. Resources to offer this do exist,
but the demand outstrips the supply.

Blah blah blah blah blah. More socialist whinings. Yes, you must be
right and these Welfare programs to "help people out temporarily" have
been so successful that they are still in place 50 years later with
3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., members of the same families living on them for
their entire lives.

If you want to support these people for their lifetimes because you
feel so sorry for them, then do it yourself. Open your personal
wallet and do it but don't insist that *all* workers be forced to do
so by government mandate.







Charity should always be voluntary. No working adult should be
*forced* by law to take care of other adults. If there weren't so
many mandated social programs in existence I believe that people would
act more charitably of their own free will. It is the forcing of
supporting welfare programs that cuts down on the generosity. It's
only logical--why would people pay forced taxes for all the welfare
programs and then pull more money out of their pockets to help
others--just so others can double-dip?

I've heard the idea that charity is best left to private organizations
and local communities before. The problem is that it is just a
theory. The only way to prove it is to put it to the test, and then
what if the theory is wrong? How many people slip through the
cracks? It's like jumping off a building because you think you can
fly. If you're wrong, things go very very wrong. If we pull the rug
out from under needy people, and private charities end up not picking
up the slack after all, then a whole lot of people are going to
suffer. It's a big risk.

You're a socialist. I hate to break it to you but socialism is
nothing more than a theory. A theory that has been proven time and
time again that it doesn't work. Apparently you are another True
Believer who despite socialism's dismal record insists it will work if
only done "right."

We've been doing it your way for over 50 years which is proof enough
that your way (the socialist way) doesn't work. In fact, socialism
has never worked any place its been tried. Which is reason enough to
not continue doing some thing that doesn't work.


Yes, you're right.

When I specifically said I don't support socialism, what I actually
meant was "I'm a socialist".

When I said we should get people job training so they can support
themselves, what I actually meant was "We should financially support
people for the rest of their lives while they don't work."

When I said I cut out the part that I simply wasn't meaning to respond
to at all, what I actually meant was "I deliberately cut out your
quote so that I could make it appear as if you'd said something you
didn't"

When I said I was writing my own views on the subject and they were
unrelated to anything you'd said, what I actually meant was "I was
disagreeing with you but then for some inexplicable reason, decided to
pretend that I wasn't"

Thanks for clearing all that up for me. Say, I'll be having dinner
about 7:00 tonight. I'll email you later so you can tell me what kind
of food I'm in the mood for.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unwed motherhood
    ... We should be looking to get rid of this sort of government ... both parents for "child" support to pay the bill, ... The 'welfare state' doesn't do that; bad parents do, ... There's a saying that socialism wasn't invented by ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: World Democracy Emergency
    ... I support it because it, in the long run, gives a better society for ... many countries by politicians who are strongly opposed to socialism. ... on their own and it was that which destroyed Nazi Germany. ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: I am used to getting no support
    ... the truth now, finally! ... Talk about no support... ... Scientist mother and older sister A. don't know a damn thing ... I had to divorce my older sister, ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
  • Re: Good Article On Why Wives Deserve 50%
    ... Picture Diane (your future mother), a young woman still in school ... With both parents studying and three mouths to feed, ... your father becomes a top surgeon and the family now ... account and a $300 monthly child support allowance for both children. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Unwed motherhood
    ... policies in China that the left doeesn't go on and on about (they LIKE ... marries and has children and he has equal shared parenting, ... both parents for "child" support to pay the bill, ... There's a saying that socialism wasn't invented by ...
    (soc.men)