Just a thought about all this

[n0spam4me]

We have had a WAR ON POVERTY
and a WAR ON DRUGS

and we still have junkies sleeping under bridges!

what?

J.C. said, "you will always have the poor"

can AMERICA still say that we command the Moral High Ground?

or?

[Kathianne]

We have had a WAR ON POVERTY
and a WAR ON DRUGS

and we still have junkies sleeping under bridges!

what?

J.C. said, "you will always have the poor"

can AMERICA still say that we command the Moral High Ground?

or?

We have programs for those that wish help. It was decided long ago not to force people into treatment, it's their choice. Pays the piper.

[gabosaurus]

Because we have gutted our social programs to spend extra money on illegal and immoral wars.

[stephanie]

well by golly we should be rounding up all them homeless people and take them to shelters against their will..

that way we can say we are again moral..

[stephanie]

Because we have gutted our social programs to spend extra money on illegal and immoral wars.

well why aren't you and your hubby donating all your money to a homeless shelter? wouldn't that be the "moral" thing to do?

Oh I know, you libs want to FORCE everyone to donate to social programs through the Guberment...that is how you can claim the moral high ground..

[trobinett]

Because we have gutted our social programs to spend extra money on illegal and immoral wars.

Our social programs are "gutted"?

Guess I missed the gutting, and the people doing the gutting must of been using a small, dull knife.:poke:

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The highest and most appropriate High Moral Ground is the one that holds each individual accountable for seeking to meet their own needs. Now, that is not to say that people should not be helped, because there are those who truly need help for valid reasons and situations. However, to provide for the basic needs of those who are capable of helping themselves is wrong and is, in and of itself, demoralizing and disabling. Not only have people been led to become dependent on the 'system', but many of those same people have become limited based on what they are willing to accept.

An example comes to mind where I lost an employee because of her welfare and food stamp allotment. I was willing to offer her full-time employment for highly competitive pay, however, she opted to work for me only part time so she wouldn't lose her monthly welfare benefits, her government sponsored housing 'benefit', her monthly allotment of food stamps, her monthly utility bill allocation and so forth. When she reached 15 hours a week, she was in danger of having those 'benefits' taken away from her. Never mind the fact that the earnings she would have made as a full-time employee exceeded the amounts she received, she was determined to maintain that which she saw as her 'rightful benefits' provided by the government. So, because I was in need of someone for no less than 25 hours a week I was forced to tell her that I had to have her on the job for no less than that, at which point she quit her job.

If this lady had been the only person I had ever employed under those circumstances I would have thought it a fluke...but, she was only the first in a string of people I encountered in this very same circumstance, most of which expected me to sign a document for their caseworker telling them I was unable to offer them more than about 15 to 20 hours a week, which I refused to do.

So, does the system work to give people a hand up or a hand out?

If a social program is a hand-up, then it should be limited and have specific guidelines and phase-out policies that are strictly adhered to as a way to prevent the development of dependency.
If a social program is a benefit, it should have first been earned as such.
If a social program is a hand-out, then it should be abolished unless there is a compelling life and death criteria that necessitates its existence.


The old adage "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" truly speaks volumes when it comes to social programs.

[Insein]

We're losing the war on poverty!! We need to take to the streets and hit poverty back where it lives. We will take it down block by block and street by street until the enemy is defeated. We need more troops though. Poverty is a wiley enemy that requires brute force to take down. We must show it no mercy!