Government fails Oher, Rich Christian family saves him

[Magic Man]

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).

But...but that's socialism!

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Whoa there! Let's take it down a notch. Obviously, they need to be more effective. That's kind of the whole point. However, like many things in the government, they also need to be more efficient. I've never heard anyone say that a government system shouldn't be efficient before. I'm curious why you don't think it needs to be.

 

[Smoke]

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?

First, I don't believe you're in a position to know what programs I do and do not support, and I know you're not in a position to feign shock at snarky comments.

Second, some people are going to fall through the cracks. Some people are going to graduate from the public schools without a decent education. Some people are going to live in neighborhoods with poor roads and even with poor water. That doesn't mean we should give up; it means we should redouble our efforts.

Third, the main person who failed Michael Oher was his crackhead mother, and Christians are the first people to scream about any interference in the rights of parents to bring up their children as they see fit.

Fourth, your much-vaunted Christian charity failed Michael Oher for sixteen years, too. Where were all the good Christians who, we are constantly assured, will take care of the poor if the government leaves them to hang? For sixteen years the tax-exempt fatcats of Christianity did nothing to help Michael Oher. They picked him up at the end of his childhood when they saw he could be useful to a private Christian school's football program, and then had the temerity to use him for self-serving propaganda purposes. Sorry, I'm just not that impressed.

 

[Dunemeister]

Whoa there! Let's take it down a notch. Obviously, they need to be more effective. That's kind of the whole point. However, like many things in the government, they also need to be more efficient. I've never heard anyone say that a government system shouldn't be efficient before. I'm curious why you don't think it needs to be.

May I suggest a look at some of the work by John Raulston Saul?

In any case, I give you Exhibit A: The Canadian postal service. This used to be a sacred trust in Canada. Our postal service used to get the mail to every citizen within one working day no matter where they lived -- even the frozen arctic regions.

Then some Ottawa idiot (no doubt a rational and moral person in every respect) got it in his head to "rationalize" the mail service by making it more "efficient." That meant several reforms:

1. Do away with door-to-door delivery. Mail carriers shall henceforth deliver the mail to community boxes at the end of the street to which citizens must walk regardless of age, medical condition, or weather. This is "efficient" because it reduces the number of postal workers and reduces the time it takes to "deliver" the mail.

2. Do away with full-service postal centers. Instead, let's farm out postal service to outlets like convenience stores who can run the service as a sideline. This is also more "efficient" because it means fewer postal workers.

3. Abandon the north almost utterly.

The result? Less mail gets to fewer people, and it takes longer to do that. The people are removed from their national postal service by intermediaries like 7-11. Communication has become slower because our government quit the field. Stepping into the breach, of course, are such profit-driven entities like UPS, which charges exorbitant fees to get something across the street. So in the end, the taxpayer still pays more for less.

What's galling is that communication is essential to the effective operation of a democracy (a profoundly irrational and inefficient form of government -- God bless it). So it seems there is a public interest to be served by the government delivering the mail. But that doesn't matter, you see, because government must be "efficient," today's western sacred cow.

 

[Magic Man]

May I suggest a look at some of the work by John Raulston Saul?

In any case, I give you Exhibit A: The Canadian postal service. This used to be a sacred trust in Canada. Our postal service used to get the mail to every citizen within one working day no matter where they lived -- even the frozen arctic regions.

Then some Ottawa idiot (no doubt a rational and moral person in every respect) got it in his head to "rationalize" the mail service by making it more "efficient." That meant several reforms:

1. Do away with door-to-door delivery. Mail carriers shall henceforth deliver the mail to community boxes at the end of the street to which citizens must walk regardless of age, medical condition, or weather. This is "efficient" because it reduces the number of postal workers and reduces the time it takes to "deliver" the mail.

2. Do away with full-service postal centers. Instead, let's farm out postal service to outlets like convenience stores who can run the service as a sideline. This is also more "efficient" because it means fewer postal workers.

3. Abandon the north almost utterly.

The result? Less mail gets to fewer people, and it takes longer to do that. The people are removed from their national postal service by intermediaries like 7-11. Communication has become slower because our government quit the field. Stepping into the breach, of course, are such profit-driven entities like UPS, which charges exorbitant fees to get something across the street. So in the end, the taxpayer still pays more for less.

What's galling is that communication is essential to the effective operation of a democracy (a profoundly irrational and inefficient form of government -- God bless it). So it seems there is a public interest to be served by the government delivering the mail. But that doesn't matter, you see, because government must be "efficient," today's western sacred cow.

That's fine, but obviously, the idea is to make it more efficient while keeping it or making it effective.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's fine, but obviously, the idea is to make it more efficient while keeping it or making it effective.

For many government programs, improved efficiency ENTAILS a loss of effectiveness. Mail delivery, for example, requires, as they say, boots on the ground. It's labour intensive. There are also overall benefits to the economy if everyone can rely on the mail. Thus a typical cost/benefit calculation for efficiency is out of place here. I'd say it's also out of place for most government services that matter.

For instance, since corporate practices entered the military, western armies have been profoundly unable to win wars. That's because military officers see themselves as bureaucrats organizing materiel and maintaining a command structure, not people charged with the winning of wars quickly with minimal loss of life and infrastructure (on both sides).

 

[Magic Man]

For many government programs, improved efficiency ENTAILS a loss of effectiveness. Mail delivery, for example, requires, as they say, boots on the ground. It's labour intensive. There are also overall benefits to the economy if everyone can rely on the mail. Thus a typical cost/benefit calculation for efficiency is out of place here. I'd say it's also out of place for most government services that matter.

For instance, since corporate practices entered the military, western armies have been profoundly unable to win wars. That's because military officers see themselves as bureaucrats organizing materiel and maintaining a command structure, not people charged with the winning of wars quickly with minimal loss of life and infrastructure (on both sides).

Yes, I understand your concerns, but the point is that efficiency (while being effective) can lead to better production.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

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?

Historical Poverty Tables

For the better part of 50 years the poverty rate has flunctuated between 15 and 20%. All the billions spent on helping the poor hasn't made any significant progress towards alleviating poverty.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

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.

This is hilarious. Yeah, fix the problems. You have had 50 years and poverty rate remains at about the same level. Throwing money at the poor hasn't worked.

Republicans had a terrific Welfare Reform bill in 1996 that Bill Clinton, to his credit, signed. We have strayed from those principles.

But Christian service to the poor is what we need first and foremost.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Dunemeister,

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.

How is this a lazy analysis? When we have 10.2% unemployment we consider it a great economic and moral failure. When it happens in Europe it is just an ordinary day. When Newsweek argues that we will have to put up with more unemployment (as we become more like Europe) that is what I call lazy analysis.

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.

This is a completely subjective and meaningless argument. You probably think some poor guy in West Virginia has a terrible quality of life as he enjoys his life. How can you adequately define 'quality of life?'

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.

Look at the poverty tables that I posted to Mestemia. The poverty rate has hovered in-between 15 and 20% for the better part of the last 40 years. Massive government bureaucracy has had its chance and it has failed.

 

[Smoke]

Historical Poverty Tables

For the better part of 50 years the poverty rate has flunctuated between 15 and 20%. All the billions spent on helping the poor hasn't made any significant progress towards alleviating poverty.

You mean eliminating. Some significant progress has been made toward alleviating the symptoms of poverty while not eliminating poverty itself. However, this is interesting, too: I color-coded the first chart for easy reference.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Second, some people are going to fall through the cracks. Some people are going to graduate from the public schools without a decent education. Some people are going to live in neighborhoods with poor roads and even with poor water. That doesn't mean we should give up; it means we should redouble our efforts.

Look at the poverty tables I posted to Mestemia. Massive government bureaucracy has failed to alleviate poverty.

Does your redoubling include more of the same (more government)? More of what has failed?

Fourth, your much-vaunted Christian charity failed Michael Oher for sixteen years, too. Where were all the good Christians who, we are constantly assured, will take care of the poor if the government leaves them to hang? For sixteen years the tax-exempt fatcats of Christianity did nothing to help Michael Oher. They picked him up at the end of his childhood when they saw he could be useful to a private Christian school's football program, and then had the temerity to use him for self-serving propaganda purposes. Sorry, I'm just not that impressed.

Christians did fail Michael for his first 16 years. But the first time the Tuohy's saw him they loved him. It's a lesson for all of us. Don't expect the government to take care of people. Get off your butt and do it yourself.

 

[Smoke]

Look at the poverty tables I posted to Mestemia. Massive government bureaucracy has failed to alleviate poverty.

I did. Clearly, the greatest progress was made under Johnson's Great Society programs. Republicans -- and Democrats who try to appease Republicans -- have much worse results.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

You mean eliminating. Some significant progress has been made toward alleviating the symptoms of poverty while not eliminating poverty itself. However, this is interesting, too: I color-coded the first chart for easy reference.

LOL! Nice partisan hackery. The levels remain stagnant for last 40+ years.

 

[Smoke]

The levels remain stagnant for last 40+ years.

During which time Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 years. Again, look at the charts. The Great Society was working until the emphasis shifted from helping the poor to helping the middle class and the wealthy.

 

[Dunemeister]

Look at the poverty tables that I posted to Mestemia. The poverty rate has hovered in-between 15 and 20% for the better part of the last 40 years. Massive government bureaucracy has had its chance and it has failed.

Smoke's rebuttals work for me.

 

[rojse]

Christians did fail Michael for his first 16 years. But the first time the Tuohy's saw him they loved him.

For his ability to play football.

 

[Magic Man]

But Christian service to the poor is what we need first and foremost.

As has already been pointed out to you, the Christians are more than welcome to help out now. Why don't they? If that was such a good option, they could be showing it now. They're not, meaning it's not a good enough option. It's sad that you think leaving poor people to be helped solely by Christian services is a good idea.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Dunemeister,
How is this a lazy analysis? When we have 10.2% unemployment we consider it a great economic and moral failure. When it happens in Europe it is just an ordinary day. When Newsweek argues that we will have to put up with more unemployment (as we become more like Europe) that is what I call lazy analysis.

You act as though Europe is one country. Some European countries are better than others. For instance, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland are all under 3% in unemployment, or were in 2007. That same year, the U.S. was at 4.6%, a good number compared to other European countries like France and Spain, but not compared to the previously mentioned European countries.

This is a completely subjective and meaningless argument. You probably think some poor guy in West Virginia has a terrible quality of life as he enjoys his life. How can you adequately define 'quality of life?'

It's quite simple, really. A decent quality of life includes:
Good drinking water
Access to healthy food
A decent place to live that doesn't have pests that aren't the person's own fault
Moderate furnishings including a bed, kitchen appliances, some chairs and a table at the very least
Enough clothing to hold down a decent job
Enough money for transportation of some kind, whether it be public transportation or a car

Look at the poverty tables that I posted to Mestemia. The poverty rate has hovered in-between 15 and 20% for the better part of the last 40 years. Massive government bureaucracy has had its chance and it has failed.

The problem is that you think there's some other option that's going to do better. That's where you're wrong.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

During which time Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 years. Again, look at the charts. The Great Society was working until the emphasis shifted from helping the poor to helping the middle class and the wealthy.

Talk about a lazy intellectual analysis. Do we have a dictator in the president? Does the party that controls Congress have any power?

Here are some problems with your argument. Does the free trade agreement NAFTA negotiated by Bush I and signed by Clinton get credit for reducing poverty? But liberals strongly disapprove of NAFTA. How can this be? Does the Republican Welfare Reform bill signed by Clinton in 1996 get credit for reducing poverty? But liberals despised this bill and said it would increase poverty.

How can you explain this or are you engaging in some artful sophistry?