A Bleeding Heart Has a Change of Heart

This is excellent!

 

Funny

Someone has to clean up the poop - and the democrats always leave it to others to do.

I might add, however, that it is a distortion to think that Democrats do not believe in personal accountability. The Republican Party seems to think that it has a corner on the morality market. Baloney.

I know I'm a Democrat and I believe people should work for a living and be personally accountable, and so on...all the ethical and moral aspects we should maintain ourselves as good citizens. I also believe we, as a society, have an obligation to care for each other, especially to those in need. I also believe that Corporation must be good citizens and pay taxes.

A Republicam might look at that homeless person and say, "He should get a job and if he doesn't, his situation is his own fault." Nice and tidy.

Yet a reasonable person would want to investigate a little more deeply. Perhaps this person has a serious mental disorder. Perhaps he has tried repeatedly to find work, but in his street condition no one will even let him use a bathroom to clean up, let alone give him a job. Its far to easy and simple to assume that the homeless person is lazy or unwilling to work. Such cases are rare.

BTW, I was a regional investigator for the Ohio study of mental health needs of homeless persons (www.link). Even testified before congress on the issue. Its just not as simple as some make it out to be.
WWW Link
Be well.

If it was offered to him, he most likely will do just that .... did you ever think of that????

I second both Thinkaloud and Sodaiho!!  

Yes, that used to be a position of the Democratic party. But lately it seems to me that saying that would make you a Republican in many Democrats' eyes.




Did you ever try offering a job like that to a homeless person?

Jokes - at least the good ones, and not the inane ones - always have a kernel of truth to them.

Did you ever think that not all homeless are that way because they DON'T want to be?

There are some that are quite fine living outside and under bridges and going to shelters.  They have no accountability, no bills, no taxes and no one to hassle them and tell them what they have to do.  They can get free meals, clothes, showers and medical.  What more do they need?   Our church recently went to the homeless and helped them in all sorts of ways including feeding, clothing and passing out goodie bags with toiltries.  Many were grateful.  But there were some of the homeless that were vulgar and critical of what was being done on their behalf.   They laughed, swore and mocked my friends who spent more than a day of their own time on their behalf. 

Agreed.  The whole platform is to take from those who do and give to those who don't. 

well, I can see the dividing line here without knowing  which side of the fence you're on.

I have a friend who has a son in his 20's.  The kid is useless.  He has no ambition, no goals and is aimlessly walking thru life.  My friend, who has always been a hard worker blames the government.  See, when his son was 12 he gave him a much deserved spanking.  The kid went to school and told on his father.  The CPS came by and threatened my friend saying he was NOT to lay a hand on his son unless he wanted to see jailtime.  My friend said it was humiliating to sit there and take this from what looked to him somebody who didn't have a clue.  His son, knew exactly what he did and held it over his dad's head.  So now, this dad says, the government should take him in because they are the ones who created this surly, unresponsible kid who can't hold down a job for anything. 

ok,  I agree, but do you believe we should be FORCED to do so?  It's one thing to do something out of the goodness of your heart, it's quite another to be FORCED to care for another.  This is not biblical btw.  

If I go to the store and buy my groceries should I be forced to take 25% of what is in my carriage and give to another having no choice in who I give it too?  That's the way of the Dems and I don't think it's right at all. 

Then if you believe this, you should be a Republican, because what you just described here is not the Democratic way. 

Well actions speak louder than words. 

Well of course Democrats believe in personal accountability, they want Bush to be accountable for everything even if he was not directly involved in it.

Some might, but many would see it as this better: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach this man to fish, feed him for life. I want this man to get a job, I would be willing to help him get this job, what i don't want is to have to work for him while he gets to sit back and enjoy his free time and free money. Is that really too much to ask? Or are you saying all homeless people are incapable of providing for themselves for one reason or another?

There are times when some people get together and believe that a good idea is good, one can say "great minds think alike". But when some people get together and believe a bad idea is good, one can say "great! these minds think alike".

Nothing against your friend but there are other ways to discipline a child that don't involve spanking. Don't get me wrong I'm not against spanking I just know that there are other ways to discipline a child like timeouts, taking away perks like tv, computer, internet, game systems, don't allow them to play with the neighborhood kids, etc. I'm not saying that they all work, but it can't all be the governments fault. Hell now that the kid is in his 20's your friend can kick the kid out of the house, force him to get a job and pay his own way.

Hahahahah El-D this is a subject we agree on. Yes I agree with you here. I'm thinking the dad gave up too easily myself. I do know the dad was fearful of losing his child to the CPS. They put the fear of jailtime in him, that's for sure. Seen it happen one other time to a co-worker of mine. Same thing happened. She was so scared she didn't even dare discipline her child and ended up with much the same result with her son.

I think if it were me, I'd give the kid a spanking for going to the teacher and warn him about the consequences. I'd be letting that child know, that I was not intimidated that's for sure.

Seems to me, this kid wasn't spanked enough when he was too young to be so smart for his britches. If done, right no spanking is needed at 12. By then they know the rules quite well and know who's the boss.

My guess is this dad (and I knew him pretty well) was a pushover until the kid got too old to handle. He started laying down the law at an age when it's not the best time to do so. Like we're discussing on Tova's blog....12 is the pits!



 :LOL: good one Charles!

yes, I can see it now. A revolution of homeless people marching down the streets of Times Square holding up signs saying "I want work", "I'll clean your back yard for $5", "I'll pick fruits and veggies for minimum wage". But wait, what will happen to all the illegal immigrants who are doing the jobs some claim Americans don't want to do that now ThinkAloud believes homeless people would do if offered to them?

It was bound to happen eventually. I can understand the fear of jail time, but at the same time you have a duty to raise the child. If the kid ends up getting taken away, so be it. As long as you're not abusing the child you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Thank you, Thank you. I'm here every Wednesday night. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

Set a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BTW KFC,

My boss loved this joke. So much he asked me for a copy to send to a couple of Liberal friends of his. LOL.

"A Republicam might look at that homeless person and say, "He should get a job and if he doesn't, his situation is his own fault." Nice and tidy."



I prefer the (anarchist?) saying a bit better - Light a man a fire, keep him warm him for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

Edit: Grrr, beaten too it! :SNIFF!:

Anyway as to the discussion springing up from the original amusing anecdote, I probably agree with both sides in part. Yes, those who receive state aid should be expected to work, but then if they are working as much as is possible given their circumstances, the state should provide aid to ensure they can survive, in the event their income from working alone is too much. It is overly simplistic in my opinion to deal with a more blanket approach of 'homeless should work, not get help', since while in many cases that might well be the case (where the person who is homeless is simply too lazy/doesn't want to get a job), in other cases the person might want to get a job, but is unable to. For a start you can have 'catch 22' situations where to get a job you need a house, and to get a house you need a job. You can also have situations where the person is incapable of working in certain jobs due to illness or other reasons, and/or even if they can do a job the employers don't want to take them on, meaning they need assistance. You provide them assistance now to enable them to get a job+get started, and then they hopefully work their way up a bit+start paying taxes rather than claiming benefits, and you've made all that money back and more!

Hello KFC, All,

I read your comment about the church group assisting homeless and getting hassled in the process. I work at our local soup kitchen fairly frequently.  The hardest part is serving the food because we never really know what to expect coming through the line.  As nice, middle class, religious types, we harbor thoughts that homeless people might appreciate our efforts, and most do, but there are the occassions where its not a pretty picture. Here's the thing, many are homeless for very good reasons, rarely because they enjoy it or are comfortable with it.  Some might be antisocial personalities, paranoid, alcoholics, drug addicts.  Some might be relative imbiciles, uneducated and/or uneducable. Still others might be so tired of being on the bottom that they just do not have it in them to be nice.  

In the study I referred to, we interviewed abot a thousand homeless people, on the streets, under bridges, in abandoned cars and buildings, pretty much everywhere.  We found them in cities and small towns, as well as in rural areas.  As I recall, about a third needed mental health services, some were suffering from the effects of Ohio becoming part of he rust belt, many had substance abuse issues.  A substantial portion were combat veterans. 

 

This is not an easy population to work with.  Its rather like trying to nurture an injured animal: do so at your own risk.

 

You also mentioned something to the effect that we as citizens should not be "forced" to help others.  That's why we are to pay taxes and support public services. Clearly and historically, the private sector will not do it. There's no profit in it. And churches are not organized across the board, do not (or rarely) share information, services, or resources, and are, at best haphazard and untrained, and atr worst, fuel on the fire.

A society is often evaluated by how well it cares for its aged, sick, and otherwise dis-enfranchised citizenry.  While we in the US talk a good game our attitudes toweard the poor and dis-enfranchised are often so stereotypic as to create real problems aroud funding issues.  The result is poor and often terribly inadequate services, poor and intermittant service delivery, and a sense of entitlement by a growing underclass.  It is a terribly complex social problem which cannot, nor will not, be remedied by simplistic solutions.

Be well.

 

-- Lord Havelock Vetinari, Patrician of Ankh-Morpork.

Honestly, give attributions!

You know, I used to be what one would call a "Democrat" in the US.

But lately I constantly find myself on the side of the Republicans.

 

BS. Actually, it is completely the other way around.  Republicans vote consistently to lower taxes on business and corporations (thus giving big breaks to them) and take from the vast working class by riding on their backs. Republicans vote conservative, wanting to retain things, maintain the status quo; Democrats tend to vote progressive, wanting to improve conditions for everyone. 

Who are these "those who don't" anyway?  Those who are elders?  Abandoned children?  Abused children?  Those who are disabled?  Those with large families and few resources?  Those working class without health care?  Returning veterans who are amputees or suffering from PTSD and alcoholism, drugs? 

Maintaining a society that cares for its citizenry is an expensive proposition. But what do you care? Yes, go ahead a vote to keep all your hard earned money, but don't expect to be on the moral high road.

Be well.

and this is liberal lunacy!

I'll give you an example from ME, my home state, from another liberal lunatic. George Mitchell was all gung ho over his "luxury tax." Maine, a very liberal state, is known to tax anything and everything. Maine is/was the highest taxed state in the nation.

Anyhow Mitchell came up with this tax to tax the rich. So it covered anything and everything from furs to jewelry to yachts. Dems were very proud of this because they felt they were socking it to the rich.

You know what happened? Within a year, Mitchell was back in the Senate passionately demanding an end to the same dreaded luxury tax. The levy had devestated Maine's boat building business, throwing yard workers, managers and salesmen out of jobs. The tax was repealed in 93. So much for that idea.

Bush's tax cuts on the other hand benefitted all, including the poor who don't pay any taxes at all. By taxing the big corporations with a heavy hand isn't going to solve anything. Their costs will be handed down to us, the average joe anyhow. So going after say the oil companies' profits is only going to push up the price of oil for the consumer.

Taxing the evil rich people unfairly isn't the answer. Winston Churchill said:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equl sharing of miseries."

So let's make everyone miserable?

"According to a 2007 study by the heritage Foundation, "Since 2000 the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4%-meaning the average famiy in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit. The share of income taxes paid by the top fifth of taxpayers climbed from 81% to 85%.

So the poorest Americans went from paying nothing to actually getting a subsidy but liberals still oppose Bushs tax cuts because the "rich" got some relief too.

Buh's tax cuts were a great economic stimulus. It's funny how peope tend to work harder and become more ambitious whenever you let them keep more of their own income. The unemployment rate in Jan 2007 was the second lowest since the mid 1970's."

(Excerpt taken from "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by Mark W. Smith)