How do we teach a poor person to fish rather than feed them for a day?

Question

I am puzzled by the repubs that are so fervent that they do not want govt to redistribute aid to the lower class. I see the poor people having babies and not working, but i still have compassion for them, I see them as being alientated from the rest of the culture, and are never exposed to the inner workings of a more educated homelife... they never have a chance....5$ an hour and a boss that treats you like dirt.......i wouldnt work either....really..

What is a republican perception on this..... do we let them starve or what?

So lightheart.... who is going to do this if not govt?..

Jenab,,, that is all true,,,,lol.......in the mental logical calculated world.... i admit,,,,, I think humans are more than that,,,,

Answer 1

We let them starve. If they starve in large numbers at about the same time, they'll riot, and we must have forces on hand to defeat them.

Afterwards, we still watch them starve.

You're free to join them, if you wish, but you shouldn't.

There are three kinds of people. The first kind doesn't need anyone to teach them how to fish because they are smart enough to figure it out.

The second kind can be taught. You might have to feed them today, but you'll never have to feed them again, because after today they will be able to fish.

The third kind can't even be taught. If you feed them today, then you will have to feed them AND their children tomorrow. And you will have to feed them AND their children AND their grandchildren the day after. And it never ends. The more you feed them, the worse your problems grow. So don't feed anyone of the third kind, ever.

If eugenic measures are undertaken soon enough, it might not be necessary to cause anyone to starve (or, otherwise, to be killed). The third-kind poor can be fed and housed all their lives in exchange for irreversible sterilization. But if their numbers grow beyond a certain point, this relatively humane option will be lost.

Blue Steel and Lace wrote: "You only get out of this life what you put into it." Nope! That's the whole problem. Breaking even is the rarest of circumstances. Whether you get out of life more than you put in, or the opposite, depends on the strength of your negotiating position. Both capitalism and Marxism work by using political muscle for their favored faction. They're merely different factions. Capitalism favors the rich. Marxism *pretends* to favor the poor, but in reality it favors the political bosses.

Chainsaw wrote: "I treat all humans as humans. I am no better than anyone else." Not true. He is better than some, but not as good as others. He has his place, and so does everyone else. The question is: Is he good enough to be worth saving, if through no fault of his he falls on hard times?

When many people are unemployed and have no income from public assistance, employers have lots of choices about who to hire, which means they can improperly require from workers concessions that the employers are not due. For example, an employer might require that someone who works for him espouse no political views at variance with his own. Workers who are competent and diligent at their labors are nevertheless sometimes fired or laid off simply because they will not relinquish their freedom of political expression.

In such cases, I side with the Marxists: drag the damned employer out of his cushy office and shoot him dead. There is no reason for the law to protect men who abuse their power to the detriment of their nation, and it does not matter whether the traitors are political leaders or corporate executives.

Except for that, though, the Marxist system is a poor one. It suffers from the fact that nature did not create collectives of social class, and so social class cannot be the basis of an enduring state. To keep a Marxist herd together, you have to maintain a bureaucratic police state that keeps the masses terrorised and working. The cost of maintaining the police state, combined with the fact that people organized by social class will, given any chance, take from the commonweal more than they put in, always brings down the state sooner or later.

So, although the Marxists are right about the necessity of denying improper political powers to the rich, they are wrong about nearly everything else. Nature does not organize men by social class, and governments that do so must defray the costs of a never-ending burden of operating contrary to natural laws.

Now, there is another sort of collective, one which nature did design and which can become the basis of national organization. It's the "family." Let nations be organized on the basis of kinship, of blood relations. That sort of collective has worked before and can again.

Answer 2

The term teach them how to fish rather than feed them. Look at drug addicts and their family members that enable them. Discipline is the only solution.

What this means is make people work hard. Giving them welfare only makes them not self reliant.

As for the poor, that is too bad. I have found in my years that most poor have poor habits: fowl mouth, do not show up to work on time, listen to garbage like rap, and have no or little work ethic. They are more concerned on when is their break than doing a good job. I am generalizing and know not all poor are like this.

I have earned everything I have and have overcome a lot of hurdles to get there. I do not blame others, I simply play the hand I have been dealt.

I treat all humans as humans. I am no better than anyone else.

What you do not understand is a person's choices dictates their results. If someone who works a minimum wage job took more initiative, they would not be at that job.

I have seen a lot of businesses where they promote people who take initiative. You have to take what you want in life, it is not given to you.

Yes we let someone starve if they are not willing to take care of themselves. It is a whole different story if someone is mentally retarded. Let the private charity give out the handouts. I will keep my money that liberals are so generous with.

Answer 3

If I had to choose between a low paying job with an abusive boss and starving, or letting my children starve, I would work the job, and look for another job at the same time.
And a lot of people have less than functional or educated homelives, and they are still productive members of society.
Also, no one is guaranteed a perfect life, free from stress, and the world doesn't owe anyone ANYTHING. You only get out of this life what you put into it.
I think it would be disgraceful to turn down a job in favor of letting my fellow citizens support me.
If that sounds uncompassionate, then I am sorry, but I save my compassion for people who are disabled or who are doing their best in spite of their childhood or educational level. It's very hard to feel sorry for anyone who would turn down a job in favor of welfare.

Answer 4

It's not the working for $5.00 an hour and getting treated like Shi - ..It's the fact that there isn't enough left over to pay for food, clothing, and housing and DAYCARE and God forbid they have to pay for healthcare.. I was working at $7 an hour and my insurance was over half of what I made... People need to stop judging those on "welfare" and stop categorizing them as lazy...the truth is most parents want to work..they just make more by not working...

Answer 5

Aid, financial or otherwise, is helpful, but only if you are trying to help yourself. The key to the statement you quote is education. Teach a person to fish..........

I am all for helping the poor, homeless, underprivelidged, whomever is in need. But so often, these same people come back with their hand out again and again. They sit around and wait for "state aid" instead of trying to learn how to fish.

The welfare reform is not meant to be harsh or critical of persons in need, but I have seen it first hand throughout my life. I knew some people back about 35 yrs. ago when the welfare system did not expect you to do anything but sit on your butt and collect a welfare check. If you had children under the school age of 6 you did not have to go look for work. You were eligible until that child entered school. They purposely had several kids about 4-5 yrs. apart to keep the welfare coming in and their lazy butts at home. (Good life for a kid, huh?). So now, there are so many people falsifying records, borrowing kids birth certificates, having babies, etc. to maintain the checks coming in that the system is getting depleted. Gotta do something....Welfare Reform.

You have to work so many hours a week to remain eligible for a check or food stamps. What's wrong with that? The system finally got smart and is trying to weed out the "takers" and "loafers". Now, if you don't maintain a set number of "work" hrs. your benefits are cut completely.

The welfare system will also cover day care or child care for you while you work if your child is under school age. They will help you purchase a car or pay for public transportation to get to and from work. They ALSO have training sessions to help you LEARN to complete resumes, apply for jobs and how to conduct yourself during an interview. They will ALSO in MANY cases pay for you to go to school. 100% tuition...FREE...They ARE trying to teach the poor to fish instead of feeding them for a day.

Only problem I see with this is that the vast majority on welfare are uneducated. They do everything but work for you. If you cannot get off your lazy butt and get FREE education, FREE transportation, FREE child care, FREE support and training to look for a job, YOU DON'T WANT A JOB VERY BAD and are abusing the system that WILL work for the persons who are TRYING to help themselves.

You may have to take a menial job for a SHORT time, but once you complete your education, you can join the ranks of the middle class (for lack of a better term) and be proud to go to work every day and support yourself and your family instead of just sitting around waiting for the check(s) to roll in.

On the other hand:

I also know people who have been working and make maybe $50.00 a month OVER the guidelines for eligibility for ANY of this aid. These are the few that fall through the cracks, so to speak. They can't afford an education, car, childcare, etc. and are not eligible for assistance. They are forced to live at or below poverty level because they "make too much". This is a crock too. This is where the minimum wage comes into play. Whoever decides what the minimum wage should be should be forced to make only that much, NO perks of any kind, NO aid of any kind, NO nothing of any kind and have to support THEIR family on it instead of the 6 figures they make by passing such laws and deciding NOT to raise it while voting themselves a pay raise.

The system does work, but it has been abused so much that it is killing the ones who are honestly trying.

We need some kind of program for these people. A middle ground so to speak. BTW...I'm NOT republican

Answer 6

You want this republican perception on this??Tell them to stop having baby after baby with several different dads who all refuse to pay child support and the mother refuses to go to work. Tell these people to stop their crack habit, I can barely afford my pop habit but I get to support crack habits when they can't make it in life. Why if they are so satisfied with a dead end $5 job tell them to get 2 or 3 so they can take care of themselves. As for them being educated you stay in school and maybe even get a grant and go on to school. Granted there are some that have a physical or an actual mental disorder that keeps them from working but even they have jobs and schooling. I'm tired of falling thru the cracks so I can support these leech's. In this country we all have opportunities and sometimes we have to make the effort rather than wait for it to come to us.

Answer 7

The thing that makes me laugh is that you are speaking of people who claim to be Christians. Their selfishness and lack of mercy is expressly against the faith. So many hypocrites. Do what you think is right. A little story from my experience:

I gave a homeless man $5 and my girlfriend that was with me at the time jumped all over me telling me that I should not have given the man money because he would only buy alcohol. I told her that if he's living on the street in the richest nation in the world, he deserves a drink.

Answer 8

I experience right here that your actual argument isn't about who dies richer yet is about innovative taxation. the completed income tax device contained in the U.S. is screwed up. sure, the prosperous in theory a minimum of, pay a larger percentage of their income in tax than do the undesirable. i might want to argue that this probable varies a great deal reckoning on human being cases. the prosperous pay a larger percentage of their income than do the undesirable yet have many opportunities to have interplay in events which results of their being waiting to take great factor about many tax deductions. This in turn supplies the politicians the flexibility to inspire particular behaviors and DIScourage others. it truly is named "social engineering". might want to it no longer be straightforward to pay income tax (if we could pay it!) at a flat percentage with few if any deductions? sure, the prosperous might want to pay more effective in spite of the undeniable fact that it doesn't damage them on an identical time as a lot as that similar percentage being taken from the undesirable.

Answer 9

Great, great question

The actual problem is not being poor....most immigrants move up, acquire assets, and insert themselves into American society

The problem is unstable people and unstable families

some stable families will run into a difficult times but they generally bounce back in a short time

Unstable people.....biggest social problem we have

Why would a young girl have a child at 14......or even 18. or 20

Most people understand that you have to educate your self...plan a life with a career,.....find a good mate....have a stable home life and then start a family.........it is not secret that is hidden by the rest of society

Look at Oprah....she went from abuse and nothing to Professional, entrepreneur and billionaire

Unstable people having children......generally pass on the bad behavior and make the future life of their children miserable.....children raising children......unable to assist with college or help with a first payment down payment....their children often have bad social skill...that hinder their ability to get a good job and their work ethic....work relations with peers

America is rough country to live in for the developing world because it permits great success....which mean you have to let people also go down in status...to have others rise.....the Super-rich of 100 years are not the super-rich of today....

Their are social programs to let the unstable survive...to eek out an existence to encourage them to work....and get into regular society......not reward instability ..........for some it helps

Every society has unstable people...we have a higher amount of the population because of our letting winners rise up...and for that we have a very driven market that increases the lifestyle of the average American....with tons of consumer items

The only institution that has ever ended instability and corrected lives in America has been the US military.....WW2 they took poor rural and urban males......gave them skills, health care, dental care...taught them jobs...and offered schooling and mortgages after they got out.....40 million people.....why we boomed from the 1950' to 1975's.

For years when we had the draft....judges would tell males starting out on the wrong side; either army or jail....Gene Hackman the actor...said it changed his direction

Now says we jail kids.....to house them where they coexist with harden criminals....you learning from your environment....so that when these kids go in jail....then keep returning as adults....all because it was there school system that taught them how to live the future

Don't send the kids to jail...send the parents....then they have an incentive to look after their kids....who they hang out with...why they are not in school getting decent grades

Very sad but correctable for the majority of unstable people...some will always fall through.......we could greatly reduce the amount

Answer 10

The real flaw in the republican mentality is that people are poor because they want to be!
This comes from the mentality of people who seldolm ever do a real days work! Or have to go without food so their children can eat! Most poor people do not want a hand out, they want a hand up!