Government fails Oher, Rich Christian family saves him

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi everybody,

There is a new movie out called The Blind Side which is a true story about a poor kid who gets adopted by an incredibly wealthy, devoutly Christian family. The kid who is Michael Oher, now is an offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens and will probably win Rookie of the Year honors.

But this got me thinking. The government completely failed Michael Oher. The billions of dollars we spend on social programs to help Michael Oher never helped him. When the rich Tuohy family first meant Michael he was walking to school in the cold in a t-shirt and shorts.

How did Michael Oher fall through the cracks?

I mean, liberals pontificate about helping the 'least of these' but in actuality the 'least of these' like poor Michael are rarely helped by these very expensive government programs.

But the Tuohy's didn't trust the all-loving hand of the government to help Michael. They helped him themselves. They didn't ignore the freezing Michael and think to themselves that well, we pay our taxes to take care of people like him. They knew he wasn't being cared for.

And we know there are millions more like Michael Oher that are not loved by Tuohy families. They are the sad and tragic legacy of a failed welfare system that does not improve people's lives no matter how much money you throw at it.

 

[Zephyr]

Our social programs are horribly underfunded, and what do you expect when conservatives take every opportunity we get to improve them. Of course our social programs are crap, because our lawmakers are making them crap. You can't hardly expect to help people when nobody is willing to keep the system up and floating.

Would you prefer we all just sit around and wait for some rich family to adopt all of us as well?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Zephyr,

Isn't the amount completely arbitrary? I mean, we spend billions of dollars on this and somehow all that money couldn't help Michael Oher. And your solution is just to spend some more. If we add X billion then Michael Oher would have been helped.

Second, you seem to fail to realize the horrible efficiency and response of massive bureaucracies. The reason people like Mike are not helped is because of the massive size of the welfare system. And you want to make this monstrosity even bigger.

 

[Zephyr]

Hi Zephyr,

Isn't the amount completely arbitrary? I mean, we spend billions of dollars on this and somehow all that money couldn't help Michael Oher. And your solution is just to spend some more. If we add X billion then Michael Oher would have been helped.

Second, you seem to fail to realize the horrible efficiency and response of massive bureaucracies. The reason people like Mike are not helped is because of the massive size of the welfare system. And you want to make this monstrosity even bigger.

You're right on one factor: it isn't all about the amount of money. It needs to be used properly as well. Cut overhead, streamline the process, and maybe we can eventually join the rest of the developed world. Tell me, why is it that Denmark doesn't seem to be having nearly as bad of a problem as we do, while they're the most economically-equal country on earth.

But seriously, tell me, how would you help Michael? Adopt him? What about the millions like him? Should everybody get adopted by a rich family? My uncle is 50, severely mentally disabled, and is living off disability and his remaining veteran's benefits. Should he get adopted by some rich christian family?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Zephyr,

You're right on one factor: it isn't all about the amount of money. It needs to be used properly as well. Cut overhead, streamline the process, and maybe we can eventually join the rest of the developed world.

We can safely say that this has never been done since the advent of the welfare state in the 1960's. It is as if you believe this is a new idea. It has been fifty years and the waste is as worse as ever. An efficient welfare bureaucracy is an oxymoron.

Tell me, why is it that Denmark doesn't seem to be having nearly as bad of a problem as we do, while they're the most economically-equal country on earth.

Where is the evidence that Denmark is void of social problems?

But seriously, tell me, how would you help Michael? Adopt him? What about the millions like him? Should everybody get adopted by a rich family? My uncle is 50, severely mentally disabled, and is living off disability and his remaining veteran's benefits. Should he get adopted by some rich christian family?

I say we do what we can. Whether that means adopting someone in a less fortunate situation or volunteering to help those in need. It is called Christian service. There is no cookie-cutter answer to every situation but I say we serve those less fortunate than us as Christ served humanity.

This is certainly a different solution than more of the same that has failed in the past.

 

[Magic Man]

Where is the evidence that Denmark is void of social problems?

Where is the evidence that Zephyr even said Denmark is void of social problems?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Or that it is so much better than the U.S.

 

[Magic Man]

Or that it is so much better than the U.S.

That's better. At least that's not a strawman.

 

[Smoke]

But this got me thinking. The government completely failed Michael Oher. The billions of dollars we spend on social programs to help Michael Oher never helped him.

That should make you very happy. If your party gets its way, the government won't help any of the poor. So what's your beef?

 

[Dunemeister]

Hi everybody,

There is a new movie out called The Blind Side which is a true story about a poor kid who gets adopted by an incredibly wealthy, devoutly Christian family. The kid who is Michael Oher, now is an offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens and will probably win Rookie of the Year honors.

But this got me thinking. The government completely failed Michael Oher. The billions of dollars we spend on social programs to help Michael Oher never helped him. When the rich Tuohy family first meant Michael he was walking to school in the cold in a t-shirt and shorts.

How did Michael Oher fall through the cracks?

I mean, liberals pontificate about helping the 'least of these' but in actuality the 'least of these' like poor Michael are rarely helped by these very expensive government programs.

But the Tuohy's didn't trust the all-loving hand of the government to help Michael. They helped him themselves. They didn't ignore the freezing Michael and think to themselves that well, we pay our taxes to take care of people like him. They knew he wasn't being cared for.

And we know there are millions more like Michael Oher that are not loved by Tuohy families. They are the sad and tragic legacy of a failed welfare system that does not improve people's lives no matter how much money you throw at it.

First of all, these "expensive government programs" cost a lot less than poverty does. In Europe's experience, it costs about half as much (to the gummit) to provide government programs alleviating poverty than to just let poverty run amock. So there can be no economic argument made for "private initiative" alone in social welfare.

Seond of all, it wouldn't make an interesting movie if it were about someone whom the government successfully helped. And believe me, there are umpteen millions of these.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

That should make you very happy. If your party gets its way, the government won't help any of the poor. So what's your beef?

I guess my beef is do you guys ever look at the results of the programs you support? Clearly the measures you support have failed and all you can make is a snarky comment. So the government will continue to fail people like Michael and you continue to believe the government can make their lives better. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Smoke,



I guess my beef is do you guys ever look at the results of the programs you support? Clearly the measures you support have failed and all you can make is a snarky comment. So the government will continue to fail people like Michael and you continue to believe the government can make their lives better. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

No, you're right. I don't know how we didn't see it before. Clearly because one person fell through the cracks and wasn't helped by the government, the whole system is a piece of ****. Clearly, if the system ever makes one mistake, it should be abolished forever.

The fact is that some people fall through the cracks. It's unfortunate but true. Maybe the system's not perfect, and maybe it could be much better than it is. You're making the common conservative error of thinking that because it has some problems, we should just get rid of it all together. Do you get divorced the first time you and your wife have a little argument? No. You work it out and move on.

Besides, if you left it to all of the "good Christians", I'd bet you'd have more people like Oher fall through the cracks and never get help.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Dunemeister,

First of all, these "expensive government programs" cost a lot less than poverty does.

How do figure this? The federal government spends billions of dollars to help poor people not to mention what the states spend.

In Europe's experience, it costs about half as much (to the gummit) to provide government programs alleviating poverty than to just let poverty run amock.

You are ignoring the true costs of Europe's generous welfare system: chronic high unemployment. Even before Europe was in a recession many countries had double digit unemployment.

So there can be no economic argument made for "private initiative" alone in social welfare.

Except Europe is a poor example of government alleviating poverty.

Seond of all, it wouldn't make an interesting movie if it were about someone whom the government successfully helped. And believe me, there are umpteen millions of these.

Well, maybe because The Blind Side was a remarkable true story. And if we all had your attitude then the Tuohy family would have never helped Michael, they would have assumed that the government would take care of him.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

No, you're right. I don't know how we didn't see it before. Clearly because one person fell through the cracks and wasn't helped by the government, the whole system is a piece of ****. Clearly, if the system ever makes one mistake, it should be abolished forever.

Do results matter at all? It is not one mistake. Look at any inner-city, they are hell-holes and this is despite millions spent helping these poor people. It is not just one kid falling through the cracks it is millions of people. But you don't look at the actual evidence to see if your ideas are working.

 

[McBell]

Hi mball,



Do results matter at all? It is not one mistake. Look at any inner-city, they are hell-holes and this is despite millions spent helping these poor people. It is not just one kid falling through the cracks it is millions of people. But you don't look at the actual evidence to see if your ideas are working.

so then present some of this evidence.

Preferably the numbers.
The number of people who the system failed and the number of people who the system helped would be two really important numbers...

It should be rather easy for you to present, I mean after all, you have accused someone of not looking at the evidence, thus implying that you have.
Since you have implied that you have indeed looked at this evidence, you would know where to find said evidence.
So how about letting the rest of in on the evidence?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,



Do results matter at all? It is not one mistake. Look at any inner-city, they are hell-holes and this is despite millions spent helping these poor people. It is not just one kid falling through the cracks it is millions of people. But you don't look at the actual evidence to see if your ideas are working.

So, where are the good Christians? I don't see them helping out that much either.

The point is (as I even said before) that the system has some problems, but that doesn't mean we get rid of it. It only means that we fix the problems. That's why I used the marriage analogy. The system still works for a lot of people. All we need to do is make it more efficient and get help for those who aren't being helped.

Again, though, what's your solution? Leave it for good Christian families? Good luck with that.

 

[Dunemeister]

You are ignoring the true costs of Europe's generous welfare system: chronic high unemployment. Even before Europe was in a recession many countries had double digit unemployment.

Right. So that one statistic is enough to convince you that government has no role in the social outcomes available in the society. It's this sort of lazy analysis that allows guys like Reagan and Bush (I and II) into the White House. Shame.

Except Europe is a poor example of government alleviating poverty.

Who are you comparing Europe with, then? The good ol' U S of A? Gimme a break!!!! Whatever flaws are inherent in the European system, the fact is that the quality of life enjoyed by the average EU citizen is far and away superior to what the typical American enjoys.

Well, maybe because The Blind Side was a remarkable true story. And if we all had your attitude then the Tuohy family would have never helped Michael, they would have assumed that the government would take care of him.

I don't mean to dismiss what the Tuohy family did. I applaud it. It just doesn't follow that the government has no role in providing for better social outcomes. The private sector is simply not willing to do it. I offered an example before to make the point, and I'll reiterate it.

In France, there were no sewers until the 1700s. And even then, they were few and far between (and privately funded). Then one day some French bureaucrats got it in their heads that sanitation for the whole country would be a good thing. So they began with Paris, demanding local landlords and shopowners accept garbage cans (and the costs of picking up the garbage) and put their buildings onto the sewer systems (partly financed by government, partly financed by the landowners). The private sector fought this tooth and nail. As a result, it took over 200 years to do what should have taken 20. Only near the beginning of WWII was every building in France connected to a sewer system and participant in garbage collection.

So private interests weren't much help in what we would now consider a no-brainer government project. Yes, the project was expensive, but it was expensive partly (mostly?) because of the legal and other roadblocks put up by landlords and other private interests. The church, too, resisted these changes. I guess even the church thought that it was better for children to wade through rivers of excrement and rubbish (a reality of 18th and some of 19th century France, including Paris), picking through it to find some shiny bauble to take to the pawnshops.

We see a similar attitude among American champions of private enterprise today, but now we can just substitute "public education" or "unemployment benefits" or "health insurance" for "sewage systems." It's the same, old, tired, regressive, and frankly greedy and self-righteous bigotry masquerading as "fiscal responsibility." Yeah, right. Like the stewards of our economic system (or their controlling privatist philosophies) can be trusted.....

 

[Dunemeister]

The system still works for a lot of people. All we need to do is make it more efficient and get help for those who aren't being helped.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! The LAST thing we need is for our welfare systems to be efficient. We need them to be EFFECTIVE, which means that they accomplish the goals that we set for them. Our obsession with efficiency is part of our problem.

 

[Dunemeister]

Do results matter at all? It is not one mistake. Look at any inner-city, they are hell-holes and this is despite millions spent helping these poor people. It is not just one kid falling through the cracks it is millions of people. But you don't look at the actual evidence to see if your ideas are working.

I will agree with you to a point, JS. Many of our welfare systems are overly paternalistic and don't empower people to do for themselves. And when you get several of these programs all stacked one on top of the other, they become disempowering and actually exacerbate the problems they're trying to solve.

But no, the answer is not keeping government out. It's putting government in in a coherent way. Unfortunately, a lot of these programs are more about the media benefit to the government who sponsors the program than the actual benefit to people.

 

[Quagmire]

Government fails Oher, Rich Christian family saves him

Wow. One rich, Christian family helps one poor kid, and its such a rare event they made a movie about it. :yes: