Government fails Oher, Rich Christian family saves him

[Alceste]

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.

How did Oher get "adopted" if not through the assistance of a government agency? Did you mean "abducted"?

 

[Alceste]

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

You are not paying very close attention:

Look at Kennedy / Johnson: 1961 to 1968. Their "massive bureaucracy" reduced the poverty levels by 40 %. Granted, Carter had little impact, but Clinton reduced the levels of poverty by 32 %. The Republicans have done nothing.

So, assuming this chart is right, that makes you wrong. 'Nuff said.

 

[Alceste]

How did Oher get "adopted" if not through the assistance of a government agency? Did you mean "abducted"?

OK, I looked it up. Oher had extensive involvement with government agencies for his entire life up to and including his adoption (which, for the thick, would have required the involvement of several government agencies.)

If you get your way and spending for social services and adoption services is cut to save tax dollars, it's pretty likely that a large percentage of people like Oher will not live long enough to be adopted by wealthy Christians when they start showing athletic promise (cha-ching!) in their late teens.

Not only that, but a lot of money could be saved by refusing to process adoption applications for children over the age of, say, 14. Technically, a child should to be able to work for a living at that age instead of being a drain on government funds. (And why not 12?)

 

[McBell]

The empirical data show that despite the billions spent on reducing poverty, the rate has remained stable for the past 40+ years.

Yet you fail to show how many the government failed and how many government helped.
You also fail to show that the government is failing enough people that the government system needs to be replaced.

You also fail to show how your proposed generous Christian system is able to cover those that the government has failed, let alone how it could possibly handle the full load after the government system is done away with.

So, you wanna try again?

This is the hilarious thing. Government fails millions of poor people everyday and you defend the failed system tooth and nail.

You are a flat out liar.
I have not defended the government system, let alone tooth and nail.
That is a bold faced lie on your part.

Furthermore, you have not shown that the government system needs to be scrapped.
You have not shown how your proposed generous Christian System is able to keep up with the ones the government missed, let alone the full load.

Personally I see nothing hilarious about it.
Though I do find your bull **** rather disgusting.

I would say one thing; the billions that are wasted not helping the poor would be put to much better uses.

You say a whole lot of things that are just flat out not true, bold faced lies, and wishful thinking.

 

[Quagmire]

... I would say one thing; the billions that are wasted not helping the poor would be put to much better uses.

Wow! So we're spending money to not help the poor now? I'm learning so much from this thread.

So tell us Joe; "better uses" as in...? What? A new boat? A newer minivan? A trip to Cabo?

Put it this way: if we did away with the welfare system right now, and cut everybody's taxes proportionally, what would you do with the extra money?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Probably a combination, but the Great Society only began to falter as war spending increased along with social welfare spending. Basically, we can't afford both military adventure and social welfare. You'll have no trouble guessing which I think is the better investment.

At least you are considering it’s a possibility. This is progress from your simplistic analysis that only Democratic administrations reduced poverty while Republican administrations did nothing. I would rather look at the substance of the policies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Stocks http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...oher-rich-christian-family-6.html#post1787444
Did NAFTA reduce poverty?

Not to my knowledge.

Well, the unemployment rate dropped after Clinton signed NAFTA. More jobs were created; do you think that had anything to do with a reduction in poverty?

That's not really clear. Welfare reform involved a whole complex of changes which were implemented in various ways and at different times in different states. It's actually a pretty complex subject.

I don't think it is as complex as you may think. Actually one of the principles behind welfare reform was very simple: the government cannot alleviate poverty by simply giving money to poor people. This will, of course, be counterintuitive to liberals but just giving people money does not make them richer.

And why did our welfare system need reform in the first place? Hadn't all those benevolent Democratic administrations figured it out already?

Spoken by the guy who wants us to trash our social welfare programs based on anecdotal evidence about Michael Oher. Just for future reference, whatever kind of hackery I may practice, it's hardly partisan hackery. I loathe the Democrats nearly as much as I loathe the Republicans.

There was this guy named Smoke who color-coded a graph making the argument that only Democratic administrations cared for the poor. Where did he go?

And I'm sorry my color-coding offended your sensibilities. Does anything at all that might conduce to greater clarity have that effect?

LOL! There is that bipartisan Smoke again.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Where have you seen this talking point? Can you point it out to me in any place? Otherwise, I'll just continue to see it as the strawman it is.

In pretty much every conversation about reducing poverty that I have had with a liberal if you mention how wasteful and inefficient government is you get the retort that poor people will either starve to death or resort to eating dog food. You either have two possibilities; keep the same failed system or massive starvation. Implicit in this is that government is the only proper vehicle to reduce poverty (this despite its horrible track record).

No, it has alleviated poverty, it just hasn't eliminated it.

Where? Come with me to 1st and Center in Milwaukee and we'll see how government is alleviating poverty. For that matter go to every inner-city and see how Democrats have had multiple decades to alleviate poverty and have failed to do so.

No, it hasn't. It has gone down and up several times. As was pointed out to you, when democratic presidents have been in power and allowed to do something about poverty, it has gone down significantly. Then the republicans come back in and forget about the problem and it goes back up.

Smoke and I are starting to discuss actual policies and not some silly color-coded graph. You are free to join us.

I've admitted that it has failed some people, yes. Millions on a daily basis? That's a bit much, unless you have something to back it up.

Once again, come with me to the inner-city of Milwaukee or any other inner-city. Millions are failed by the government every single day.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Dunemeister,

I don't know enough to answer this question.

Then why did you in a rather knee-jerk reaction claim that Smoke made a sound argument? So, you know very little about the policies of the Democratic administrations that allegedly reduced poverty but come here and defend Smoke's simpleton argument that only Democratic administrations have reduced poverty. Talk about a lazy analysis.

No. Arguably, it made it worse.

Then why did the unemployment rate fall after Clinton signed NAFTA? I hope you give this more thought than your blind endorsement of Smoke's argument.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

Look at Kennedy / Johnson: 1961 to 1968. Their "massive bureaucracy" reduced the poverty levels by 40 %. Granted, Carter had little impact, but Clinton reduced the levels of poverty by 32 %. The Republicans have done nothing.

So, assuming this chart is right, that makes you wrong. 'Nuff said.

Smoke and I are starting to discuss the actual policies of various Democratic administrations instead of believing a color-coded graph says it all.

OK, I looked it up. Oher had extensive involvement with government agencies for his entire life up to and including his adoption (which, for the thick, would have required the involvement of several government agencies.)

Is it your assessment that Michael was well-served by his extensive connections with various government agencies as he walked to school in the cold wearing a t-shirt and shorts?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

Yet you fail to show how many the government failed and how many government helped.
You also fail to show that the government is failing enough people that the government system needs to be replaced.

Like I said to mball, let's take a walk around 1st and Center in Milwaukee. Let's go to any inner-city and see the millions of poor people well-served by their welfare bureaucracy.

That you can look at inner-city poverty and not think that our welfare system should be scrapped makes me think your head is in the sand.

You are a flat out liar.
I have not defended the government system, let alone tooth and nail.
That is a bold faced lie on your part.

Let's be more dramatic.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Quagmire,

Wow! So we're spending money to not help the poor now? I'm learning so much from this thread.

So tell us Joe; "better uses" as in...? What? A new boat? A newer minivan? A trip to Cabo?

Are you implying that the billions spent on our welfare bureaucracy is well spent? That would be news to millions of poor people in our failed inner-cities. Come with me to the homeless shelter Repairers of the Breach and tell all the poor that the government is doing a great job of taking care of them.

 

[Quagmire]

Hi Quagmire,



Are you implying that the billions spent on our welfare bureaucracy is well spent? That would be news to millions of poor people in our failed inner-cities.

No; I'm asking you a question. You seem to be implying that one Hallmark moment between a family of rich Christians and one disadvantaged kid somehow proves that the welfare system is...what? Unnecessary? That we should do away with government support and just trust all the religious people in the country to take up the slack?

That's why I'm asking you; what would you---you personally---do with whatever extra money you wound up with at the end of the year if we did away with the entire bureaucracy?

Like I said; most likely we would wind up seeing a few new boats, a cpl bigger minvans, more suntanned religious people, and just as many poor people---no doubt more---than we already have.

Come with me to the homeless shelter Repairers of the Breach and tell all the poor that the government is doing a great job of taking care of them.

Lol! I'll add it to the list. Look Joe, I've been working in the non-profit sector on and off for over 20 years, including quite a bit of work with the homeless. Nobody has to tell me that the system is screwed up.

And from what I can see nobody in this thread has said anything remotely like this;

tell all the poor that the government is doing a great job of taking care of them.

This is a strawman, and it seems to be all you have.

What I'm saying is this; Yes, the cart is being pulled by a lame horse. You want to shoot the horse. Great, so who's going to pull the cart? You?

 

[Smoke]

At least you are considering it’s a possibility. This is progress from your simplistic analysis that only Democratic administrations reduced poverty while Republican administrations did nothing.

Sorry, Joe, but I bear no responsibility for your simpleminded readings of my posts. If you'd care to respond to what I actually say, instead of what you imagine a liberal must really mean, I might respond in turn.

Likewise, I've never claimed that the Democrats have it all figured out or that our present system couldn't be improved. However, you don't really want to improve it, do you? You just want to abolish it.

And to be absolutely clear, I'm not "bipartisan" nor do I claim to be. "Non-partisan" or "anti-partisan" might be better. It is true that although I loathe both parties I loathe the Republicans more than the Democrats, considering the Democrats merely venal, corrupt, short-sighted, incompetent and authoritarian, whereas the Republicans are all that plus faith-based, clergy-ridden, hypocritical, demagogue-worshipping ********.

 

[Smoke]

Then why did the unemployment rate fall after Clinton signed NAFTA?

It's debatable what effect NAFTA had on unemployment. One school of thought, which I'm sure you're familiar with, is that NAFTA directly increased employment in the U.S. Another is that since NAFTA was signed during an economic boom, increased employment was more the result of that boom than of NAFTA. In other words, the proximity of the events doesn't prove causation.

What's undeniable is that Americans lost a lot of high-paying jobs with good benefits, and that real compensation to those workers who still has decreased, while compensation to upper management has grown phenomenally.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Quagmire,

No; I'm asking you a question. You seem to be implying that one Hallmark moment between a family of rich Christians and one disadvantaged kid somehow proves that the welfare system is...what? Unnecessary? That we should do away with government support and just trust all the religious people in the country to take up the slack?

What I am arguing is that there are millions like Michael that are failed by our welfare system. Could and should Christians do more? Of course. But this is another issue, completely distinct issue from the performance of our current welfare system.

I say our welfare system fails millions of our fellow citizens and all you can come back with "Christians wouldn't do any better." While this reply may sound nice, it does not address the systemic failures of our welfare system.

hat's why I'm asking you; what would you---you personally---do with whatever extra money you wound up with at the end of the year if we did away with the entire bureaucracy?

I would give more money to the Milwaukee Rescue Mission, a charity I often donate to. I would also give more to various Catholic charities that I donate to.

Lol! I'll add it to the list. Look Joe, I've been working in the non-profit sector on and off for over 20 years, including quite a bit of work with the homeless. Nobody has to tell me that the system is screwed up.

Do you want a larger welfare bureaucracy then?

What I'm saying is this; Yes, the cart is being pulled by a lame horse. You want to shoot the horse. Great, so who's going to pull the cart? You?

What could be a great solution but is despised by liberals is federalism. Let states create new and innovative ways to alleviate poverty and the states could learn what policies work and which ones don't.

 

[Quagmire]

Hi Quagmire,



What I am arguing is that there are millions like Michael that are failed by our welfare system. Could and should Christians do more? Of course. But this is another issue, completely distinct issue from the performance of our current welfare system.

I say our welfare system fails millions of our fellow citizens and all you can come back with "Christians wouldn't do any better." While this reply may sound nice, it does not address the systemic failures of our welfare system.

It addresses the OP (yours if you'll remember), which is what we're supposed to do here.

I would give more money to the Milwaukee Rescue Mission, a charity I often donate to. I would also give more to various Catholic charities that I donate to.

What I'm saying is that unless you'd be willing to donate the entire difference to charity, I can only see your objections to the current system as at least partially motivated by self-interest.

Do you want a larger welfare bureaucracy then?

No, I want us all to go back to living in huts and feeding ourselves by hunting, fishing, and farming.

The difference is I know my 'druthers are impractical.

What could be a great solution but is despised by liberals is federalism. Let states create new and innovative ways to alleviate poverty and the states could learn what policies work and which ones don't.

Then the states with the most benevolent systems would wind up with the bulk of the nations poor. That in itself makes the idea impractical.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Sorry, Joe, but I bear no responsibility for your simpleminded readings of my posts. If you'd care to respond to what I actually say, instead of what you imagine a liberal must really mean, I might respond in turn.

I am not the one that color-coded a graph in a completely partisan fashion. And then takes pains to say that they are not partisan.

It's debatable what effect NAFTA had on unemployment. One school of thought, which I'm sure you're familiar with, is that NAFTA directly increased employment in the U.S. Another is that since NAFTA was signed during an economic boom, increased employment was more the result of that boom than of NAFTA. In other words, the proximity of the events doesn't prove causation.

What's undeniable is that Americans lost a lot of high-paying jobs with good benefits, and that real compensation to those workers who still has decreased, while compensation to upper management has grown phenomenally.

A number of interesting things to glean from this:

If NAFTA didn't directly create jobs and lowered unemployment (which seems dubious), how did this terrible free trade agreement not create more of a downturn in the economy (especially when it was one of Clinton’s signature achievements)?

If NAFTA on net made Americans poorer, then why are you color-coding the Clinton presidency as evidence that Democrats did a good (or better) job at reducing poverty?

 

[Smoke]

If NAFTA on net made Americans poorer, then why are you color-coding the Clinton presidency as evidence that Democrats did a good (or better) job at reducing poverty?

Actually, at the time I posted the graph -- and you were the one who introduced it into the discussion -- my comment was that LBJ did a better job than Republicans or Democrats who tried to appease Republicans. My message was not Democrats good; Republican bad. If anything, my message is Democrats bad; Republicans even worse. I might have done better to criticize the Blue Dogs by name, despite the fact that it would have been partly anachronistic, just to make my position absolutely clear.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Quagmire,

What I'm saying is that unless you'd be willing to donate the entire difference to charity, I can only see your objections to the current system as at least partially motivated by self-interest.

Oh, no, evil 'self-interest.' Yeah, it would be nice to have less of my money flushed down the toilet and more money for me to donate to charities of my choice (that pesky freedom you guys don't like) and maybe to pay some of my bills. After all, I think I'm the one working and earning the money in the first place. Cue the 'selfish' talking point.

No, I want us all to go back to living in huts and feeding ourselves by hunting, fishing, and farming.

The difference is I know my 'druthers are impractical.

Looks like you can't give an honest answer. A simple yes or no question (of course you are free to elaborate), would you increase the size of our current welfare system bureaucracy?

Then the states with the most benevolent systems would wind up with the bulk of the nations poor. That in itself makes the idea impractical.

LOL! The state that does a good job at alleviating poverty will get more poor people. This would be bad how? If the state is good at something, it wouldn't get punished for its good work. Second, you ignore mimicry. As state A devises a good policy in alleviating poverty, political leaders in state B will want to copy the policy of state A. There most likely would not be this mass migration of poor people to a handful of states.

 

[Smoke]

If NAFTA didn't directly create jobs and lowered unemployment (which seems dubious), how did this terrible free trade agreement not create more of a downturn in the economy (especially when it was one of Clinton’s signature achievements)?

It depends what you're looking at -- how you're measuring the economy. Profits went up, but jobs went down - the U.S. had a substantial net loss of jobs in the decade following NAFTA, and the jobs we had didn't pay as well or offer as many benefits. What benefits business does not necessarily benefit the people.