She paints with a broad-brush which is a bit unfair, but she raises a lot of good points.

Having worked in the welfare, law enforcement and prison systems - I can state emphatically these types of social workers exist in droves and are a very large part of the problem existing in the rehabilitation of children into productive members of society.

Although I don't know what the statistics are now, am sure they cannot be much better than they were ten years ago given the crime stats of the day.

Liberals tend to believe they can fix something by throwing money or toys at it.

Conservatives tend to believe that if they ignore problems, the people that cause them will eventually go away and die.

This article is so full of lame platitudes like "white liberal guilt", that just reading it made my teeth hurt.

Lowest common denominator ideology.

"Missing is any genuine concern for the plight of inner-city blacks. If the Left truly cared, they'd do more than blame whitey. They'd scrutinize the billions of dollars wasted on failed programs."

Right, the left isn't concerned about reducing fraud and making programs more effective.

"They'd acknowledge that welfare programs have rendered fathers optional. That reminding blacks 24/7 about slavery and other atrocities weakens their spirit, and positions them as permanent victims."

How did it come to pass that welfare mandates that only single parent households may qualify? That wasn't a liberal position, it was a concession to gain republican support for the programs for passage of the legislation.

h.c. - I worked in welfare fraud doing civil citations - the unintentional ones - arranging pay backs. We'd get 100-150 referrals a day - difficult at best to try to get to a quarter of them - so yes, you're right in one sense and many people know they'll never be caught if they stay just enough under the radar. It also doesn't help with the "I deserve this" mentality of fourth and fifth generation recipients.

We'd get 100-150 referrals a day - difficult at best to try to get to a quarter of them - so yes, you're right in one sense and many people know they'll never be caught if they stay just enough under the radar.
#6 | Posted by nanc

I think that the audits would more than pay for the staff necessary to do them.

It also doesn't help with the "I deserve this" mentality of fourth and fifth generation recipients.
#6 | Posted by nanc

Of course not.

Ever try doing budgets to get new staff through a government entity? We were always three or four investigators low and two or three secretaries low. The agency bringing in the most money usually gets the benefits of extra staff - what can you get when you work in the welfare system? It's the redhaired stepchild and a monster that will not go back under the bed!

"Ever try doing budgets to get new staff through a government entity?"

No, but who are the ones who usually try to squeeze a government budget in order to "starve the beast"?

Progressives and people who wish to maintain their superior status - people who love to have people beneath their feet - not sure what you're getting at?

"not sure what you're getting at?"

LOL.

Okay.

Conservatives tend to believe that if they ignore problems, the people that cause them will eventually go away and die.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-28 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals tend to believe that if they don't expand the problems, the people that cause them will no longer vote for them. Nothing like inflating a problem to expand the base.

Perfect illustrative exchange, HC.

I'm all for the government handing charity BACK to the churches - isn't that what they're supposed to be about? I'm actually praying there is an awakening in the churches to this or they need to have their tax-exempt status removed - imagine churches doing what they're supposed to be doing?
#12 | Posted by nanc

I agree. If the churches, and by extension their congregations, really followed their professed ideals, we wouldn't need the state to do these things. Making their deeds superior to their rhetoric, I might even consider joining a church again.

But until that day comes....

Perfect illustrative exchange, HC.
#14 | Posted by YAV

*shrugs

I do what I can.

-Nothing like inflating a problem to expand the base.

Which is exactly the GNOP Culture War divide and conquer strategery.

In the real world, people vote for their own self-interests, as the black community has voted for those who helped to expand their rights when they had few.

In GNOPLand, poor to mid income whites vote against them thar 'bortionists and Bible-haters, and gun confiscatin' Revenuers...... thereby voting for the GOP.

Leave it to Corky - divide - divide - divide. A house divided will not stand. But then you knew that...didn't you?

Hate to break the misconception, but early churches cared for their congregants and, if they could, the local sick and poor.

But the idea that churches are meant to take care of the social welfare of whatever country they happen to be in is absurd and non-historical and non-scriptural.

We the People account in our gov documents for the general welfare, and it is We the People who are responsible.

"A house divided will not stand."

Neither will a "kingdom".

Just look at this country as one good example!

-Leave it to Corky - divide - divide - divide

I described the long-held GOP strategery of dividing us by means of Culture War issues. The GOP has never had the numbers of support to win on issues for their wealthy clientele, so they needed the poor to mids to support them against their own self-interests, and dividing people along cultural lines is what they came up with.... and it worked for a while.

This article does hit on some truths but the analysis is hardly objective. You want to compare racism of the left vs. right then you have to account for people who get off singing magic negro songs and shit like that.

Yes, Corky - why not through our churches?

Lisa - it gets worse by the moment.

"But the idea that churches are meant to take care of the social welfare of whatever country they happen to be in is absurd and non-historical and non-scriptural."
#19 | Posted by Corky

There is no scriptural argument saying that christians should take care of those less fortunate even to the point of becoming poor themselves?

"We the People account in our gov documents for the general welfare, and it is We the People who are responsible."
#19 | Posted by Corky

I'm with you, I'm just suggesting that some groups put their money where there mouths are or barring that...

Caring for all the state's dependents is not the churches commission. The church tends to the needs of the poor as is necessary or as they can, but they are not a systemic substitute for government by We the People.

- some groups put their money where there mouths are

True enough, but there is no scriptural basis for the church taking a systemic responsibility for whichever country decides they will not aid their citizens.

There is moral responsibility to the individual, but none to become a substitute for good government.

Corky - promoting "general welfare" is NOT the same as the government forcing us to pay for the care of others.

I think that the audits would more than pay for the staff necessary to do them.

Oh sure. The people that you catch will pay you back if they ever get a job and have something left over.

The church tends to the needs of the poor as is necessary or as they can, but they are not a systemic substitute for government by We the People.

Where do you think the Church gets the money or able bodies to help the poor? Or does "we the people" not apply to anyone religious???

-Nothing like inflating a problem to expand the base.

Which is exactly the GNOP Culture War divide and conquer strategery.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-28 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: Paranoid

I see that separation of Church and State is a good concept until one wants the Church to look after the State's mistakes.

Ridiculous.

Oh sure. The people that you catch will pay you back if they ever get a job and have something left over.
#28 | Posted by mysterytoy

"I see that separation of Church and State is a good concept until one wants the Church to look after the State's mistakes."

If you were given $100 dollars and had a choice of donating it to a church or the State, which entity would you feel more comfortable with spending the money?

Corky would donate it to the Obama "Make A Wish, And Something Might Get Done" fund.

I did donate to the Cookfish Education Fund.... total waste of money as anyone can see.

The church has no systemic governmental responsibility for the citizens of a particular country, the state does.

Which is exactly the GNOP Culture War divide and conquer strategery. - Corky

Are you on drugs more than usual today? Who is fighting the culture war? Di/vid/eristy is not from the conservative playbook corkster. Playing cultures off on each other is a libtard tool, just like playing economic groups off on each other is. Conservatives want everyone to do well on their own - makes for more consumers and producers which is good for the country. Libtards need to keep certain races/economic groups down so that they have a voting base for the next election. Hate crime legislation, PC free speech legislation, ACLU..... the list is inexhaustible. Go back to your bong.

If, as most on the DR always accuse, the right is only concerned with greenbacks - why would they want to keep millions of potential customers' bank accounts empty of disposable income? It makes no sense.

- Di/vid/eristy is not from the conservative playbook corkster.

Somehow missed Karl Rove and the Bush/Cheney Culture War entirely. There must have been a South Park festival.

The church has no systemic governmental responsibility for the citizens of a particular country, the state does.

At least the church isn't giving money to corrupt Governments so they can arm themselves and kill their own. Isn't that what the State has been doing for years?

"It also doesn't help with the "I deserve this" mentality of fourth and fifth generation recipients."

I'm not sure what to make of this, but there is an argument that it's not an "I deserve this" mentality, but an "I'm not capable of doing any better" mentality.

+++++

"Corky - promoting "general welfare" is NOT the same as the government forcing us to pay for the care of others."

Actually, Nanc, the phrase is not defined. Like much of the language in the Constitution, that phrase is interpretable. One could certainly make the argument that it means exactly that--well, not forcing, but allowing the gov't to set up systems of care (Mr. Bush claimed he was a compassionate conservative, after all)--among numerous other things. One could also argue it means something--or some things--else.

+++++

ElCid, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that both sides use divide and conquer in various ways. That's what wedge issues (abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, stem cell research) do--they split people up. And no, I don't buy the argument that Dems want to keep the black man down so they can count on his vote by pretending to care. That's just silly.

At least the church isn't giving money to corrupt Governments so they can arm themselves and kill their own. Isn't that what the State has been doing for years?

The Family and C-Street gang would disagree.