When I first read this it seemed like a really good idea, I know a lot of people who would be interested in being able to do international service like that for a full (2) year(s)...
then I thought about the lost wages most people (I know) that age get in a year... part time work.. etc...
it would be really hard to implement a full year program...
maybe something like 3-6 months at a time but nothing more... and maybe require 2 or 3 trips... maybe one domestic (or more) and the others abroad...
as a 19 y-o college sophomore (admittedly in a jesuit school--I have experience with "Mandatory" volunteer work its not a bad idea...) I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to this implemented... but it would be hard to put my life on hold for something like this...
also I am fairly sure that many MANY kids would NOT like to be doing something like this... and something would have to be implemented to accommodate them...
it should be something that should be considered... not unlike kucinich's department of peace...
I don't believe citizenship should be granted at birth. I believe that is something that should be earned. I don't mind if it is earned through some community service and taking the same test as any immigrant does.
BR: People seem to prefer for the govt to take the money preemptively and promise to give it back later. Look at the success of SocSec! :P
(Talk about your compulsory, non-voluntary 'for the societal good' mechanisms...)
A lot has been said about military conscriptment... I see something as simple as doing fire tower watch for the Forest Service being qualifying. Or working for Habitat for Humanity, building houses. Or any number of things that will help people get skills at the same time as helping out society (ours and others) as a whole. One pay scale across the board, period. Think WPA, but compulsory.
and yeah to this too...
sorry, just getting back to this thread...
as for free handouts affecting people adversely (not to get too far off topic)...after my mother's nasty divorce she was raising 3 kids on her own...she went on food stamps and then back to college...at that time i think she even went on welfare for a year or two...but she got her degree and worked for 22 years after that teaching learning disabled middle school and high school students (possibly the toughest job known to mankind)...as for it creating a culture of handouts?? none of her three boys have taken a day of government handouts..we are all hard working boys....so which is the rule and which is the exception?
now back to your regularly scheduled program....
g
ps...thanks for all the "measured" responses and great thoughts and ideas (i kinda missed AO...don't know how long that will last though....)...and good to hear from paul and other young people who this would impact...as for the loss of income...wouldn't the money toward college be the same as earning cash?? sure it won't pay for beer and microwave 7-11 burritos, but it would be like savings used for bills?? anyway, i wouldn't mind variations to the program...it would take a lot of work and planning, but it could be done...but will it is a much different question
and would my wife kill me if this went forward and my daughters went off to the sahara or someplace far away, that is the more important question.
1) Great in *theory*, but guess what... the teeming masses don't agree. They want the benefits of a greater societal body without any of the responsibilities. I'm with you in principle, but the practicality weighs otherwise in my mind.
2) There's a lot of 'the gummint don't own *me*!' in there, but nothing about the fact that *we should own the government*! We lost that when we lost the culture of responsibility, and guess what - the government is no longer ours. I see *any* method of infusing a sense of responsibility back into the culture as a step towards *citizenry ownership of the government again*.
I think this was in response to the article I posted, so...
In response to pt. 1, I will say that it is not the people that want this. If you look at survey after survey, you will see that most of Americans think the government is too big, and it tends not to be individuals that expand bureaucracy, but bureaucracy itself. A general ignorance combined notably with a depression in the 30s has allowed this to happen, rather than been instituted by Americans that "want the benefits of a greater societal body".
In response to pt. 1, first I'll point out an excerpt from the article:
Quote:
The United States was founded on a radical notion: That the proper role of government is to protect the rights of citizens. In other words, individuals are the masters, and a (strictly limited) government is their servant.
I think you're right, we have lost that, but I don't think that Americans, or people in general, are any less responsible than they were 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Responsibility isn't culture specific, and it's arguably not even learned, it's simply the law of self preservation and advancement applied to sociology. You take away the oppressive, inefficient, and self-propagating bureaucracy, and people are forced to be their best or they don't make it. That's how life should work.
I reiterate, it's not that Americans like this statism, socialism, bureaucracy, etc, (although some ideologues do) but that they are uneducated, unwilling to change it, or some combination of those or other factors.
I agree with you in theory, but in practicality, I think it'll never fly.
You'll end up with a society that a) can't take care of itself (I'd argue we're already there), and b) isn't getting any artificial support from the government.
What's that quote about any government being three meals away from a revolution? Not that that's necessarily a *bad* thing with the way things are going, mind you, but I don't think it's a situation that would lead to anything but a military state.
No, in my opinion the only way to ensure a safe measure of putting a sense of responsibility into the populace is to use carrot and stick, as usual. Carrot: college $, full citizenship, voting rights, whatever. Stick: no more subsidies 'just because'. You've gotta have both until the transition is done.
The way you put a measure of responsibility into the populace is by allowing the government to judge. If the government refuses to judge, then we ought to lower the tax burden so that private charities can judge.
The reason the rights are still here is because some are inalienable and others we won't take away from other out of fear we might need them ourselves someday. However the real issue with economic need is judgement.
I would bet almost everyone here knows someone who took some government aid and then got themselves right back out of the hard spot they were in and never needed it again.
I would also bet that almost everyone here knows someone who seems to chronically undermind themselves using the government and never seems to get off the dole and back to the real world.
I see this exhibited by government where I work as well which is a school. There are no bad kids. They are troubled, disadvantaged, perhaps even mentally or emotionally disturbed in a manner which will require them to go to a more restrictive classroom environment or be medicated. (Read small ratio and lots more supervision) They are, of course, never bad.
It is the same thing with government granting assistance. You can read about private organizations that actually make demands that do help people. However government organizations just pass out goodies. No real demands. No judgements about the attempts to meet quasi-demands. Most of the time, little to no real progress, growth or improvement, resembling very much.. public schools.
Do you consider yourself a "Market Fundamentalist?" I think I might post a thread on that topic soon. ...Because it seems like you have some of the most extreme pro-business opinions possible, and I obviously think that approach is problematic. Why? I'm not entirely certain. I think it just doesn't seem *fair* to establish such a ruthless system that seemingly depends entirely on charity. I mean, what if the markets are down and no one wants to give? There's just no security.
Do not tax revenues go down when the markets are down as well?
Last time I checked, when the market lost a few trillion in value, all the government tax coffers dried up as well. They all hit big deficits, all made big cuts and services, and all hunkered down until the cash started flowing in again.
I really don't see how the government has any sort of ability to guarantee anything. They can demand their donations, but if no one has anything to donate, they are in no better a position. In fact since they aren't allowed to judge who really should get assistance, they often cut it for everyone which really causes a lot more harm.
I'm "personally responsible." I saved for my future. But somehow and for some reason it's gone- perhaps by forces beyond my control. Again, what if the markets are down and no one wants to give? There's just no security.
You've just had a grown up realization. There is no security in this world. So voting for someone who promises it to you is stupid be they Republican or Democrat. This is why even Republicans have started to grouse about all the Bush spending on "security." Defense is one matter. Trying to make every possible circumstance of life "secure" from terrorism is impossible. Bush is blowing huge holes in our budget in an attempt to prove it isn't. When someone claims they want to blow huge amounts of spending out the door to make us safe from life's tragedies, it will never work.
All we are promised by the world and by our founders is the pursuit. You can be a totally honest and good person your whole life and get struck down by a car, by cancer, by anything. All you get is a shot at a good life. If you work hard, try your best, you might get to die in your bed as a happy old man. If you've got some religion, you believe you will go someplace nicer. If not, well, you are happy worm food.
1) Great in *theory*, but guess what... the teeming masses don't agree. They want the benefits of a greater societal body without any of the responsibilities. I'm with you in principle, but the practicality weighs otherwise in my mind.
2) There's a lot of 'the gummint don't own *me*!' in there, but nothing about the fact that *we should own the government*! We lost that when we lost the culture of responsibility, and guess what - the government is no longer ours. I see *any* method of infusing a sense of responsibility back into the culture as a step towards *citizenry ownership of the government again*.
The teeming masses do consider that they have been responsible in that they have paid the taxes for the government. (Actually even then most don't as the bottom 50% pays 4% of the taxes.)
The reason people have lost the culture of responsibility is simply because the government asked them to do so while turning over their money. Look at the history of taxation and it almost always starts at 1% on the rich. When you give up this 1%, you get some great benefit and a belief that some aspect of society will no longer be bad ever again.
Social Security started at 1%. Have the images of poor old people, eating pet food while risking being tossed out on the street since they can't afford X ever gone away? (X is currently prescription drugs which both the right and left have bought into)
Social Security contributions have kept rising over the years to a little over 13% for most people. Amazingly, it is still always going "broke" which is of course why they raised the rate every other time starting from 1%.
It has basically proven you cannot buy security. In the next few years when the pay as you go program starts recalling the bonds it has issued, the fit really is going to hit the shan as they say.
Listening to the lot of you talk about "responsibility" is just silly. . .
You have made such a grand generalization that you all tacidly think you understand, and which is supposedly the same in all cases . . .
and then you take this absurd generality and blame another absurd generality (the "culture of irresponsibility") on yet another absurd generality (its all the "Govment's fault!) . . the only generality that rings true here is that, generally speaking, you are throwing around a bunch of tired cliches
instead of responsibility...how about the childhood lesson of give and take...
as an american citizen i get alot---freedom (mostly), opportunity (will never be a rich as a trump or a bush or a cheney or a kerry, but can do alright if i work at it), free education (mostly again), etc etc
so what is the big deal about asking to give??
we take easily, we give grudingly, if at all
anyways...off to work, gotta make money to pay taxes to .....
instead of responsibility...how about the childhood lesson of give and take...
as an american citizen i get alot---freedom (mostly), opportunity (will never be a rich as a trump or a bush or a cheney or a kerry, but can do alright if i work at it), free education (mostly again), etc etc
so what is the big deal about asking to give??
we take easily, we give grudingly, if at all
anyways...off to work, gotta make money to pay taxes to .....
g
The fault in the reasoning is that you assume someone has to give you that freedom and thus you owe something in return. The Declaration of Independence is clear in stating these rights are inalienable. They are not traded or given. They are yours alone.
Listening to the lot of you talk about "responsibility" is just silly. . . [/QUOTE]
So don't listen.
Quote:
You have made such a grand generalization that you all tacidly think you understand, and which is supposedly the same in all cases . . . [/B]
It must be nice to claim all knowledge while claiming all ignorance for everyone else. You are welcome to claim it isn't for everyone else or even that it is just for me. But then you should admit your are breaking the posting guidelines by obscurely calling someone stupid or ignorant.
Quote:
and then you take this absurd generality and blame another absurd generality (the "culture of irresponsibility") on yet another absurd generality (its all the "Govment's fault!) . . the only generality that rings true here is that, generally speaking, you are throwing around a bunch of tired cliches [/B]
Yes, how dare us generalize. You are welcome to show us these specifics of which you speak by example in your own posts.
I find it interesting how people are comparing this to social security...
as far as I can tell this was implemented because politicians didn't have the inclination to think about the under 18 citizen who didn't vote and would be losing 7% of their paycheck every week to pay for Seniors who didn't plan for retirement... I don't see how that is my responsibility...
on the other hand this "forced service" would be an opportunity to DO something with my life that would be hard to do otherwise--not just skimming some money off the top that I have no say in...
Listening to the lot of you talk about "responsibility" is just silly. . . Yes, how dare us generalize. You are welcome to show us these specifics of which you speak by example in your own posts.
Nick
I am specifically speaking about the generalizations thrown around that place the blame for something called "the cultural loss of responsibility" (whatever that means?!) onto the Government.
It is easy to see all the country's problems in a single light if you (and perhaps not you, Trumpt, in this situation) want only to say that the people in this culture who remain poor, those who are not finding a decent living, nor are they capable of getting insured etc etc . . . the ailments of poverty, are all the problem of a "culture without responsibility"
what I see in that is itself a kind of scapegoating: not facing up to being a part of a civilization where to be in this culture is to be with other people and to share in the general well being of that culture
what I see happening in this discussion (perhaps you are not being reffered to here) is that all of that 'responsibility' is being shunted aside in favor of some vague notion of some sort of 'responsibility' that has been destroyed by some vague misguided soviasocialistic evil government . . . destroyed for everybody except those posting here who have all pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and got themselves a JOB!!
Really, it is a kind of blaming that refuses 'responsibility' by placing the burden of all our social ills on 'Da Man' . . . and blaming all those who have used programs . . . also, it is seems to be about self-congratulations: see those poor slaves who don't know the meaning of 'responsibility'?!?! they are dupes to the big gray menace . . . But not ME . . of course!
Its at that level of abstraction that I see some generalities floating around . . . responsibility certainly is NOT being taken . . . but when looked at this way it seems that those who use the word the most are those not taking it . . .
I think that there has been good in wellfare reform, and there still can be better ideas in place
An idea that I like is if those people who need it and want it sign on for a commitment that involves civil-work . . . ie: 'giving back'
as I mentioned above, perhaps making wellfare have a flavor of military service . . .
beyond that, I wanted to respond to Gelding's original post and found it lost in a see of "responsibility' and so, I said what I said.
Comments
then I thought about the lost wages most people (I know) that age get in a year... part time work.. etc...
it would be really hard to implement a full year program...
maybe something like 3-6 months at a time but nothing more... and maybe require 2 or 3 trips... maybe one domestic (or more) and the others abroad...
as a 19 y-o college sophomore (admittedly in a jesuit school--I have experience with "Mandatory" volunteer work
also I am fairly sure that many MANY kids would NOT like to be doing something like this... and something would have to be implemented to accommodate them...
it should be something that should be considered... not unlike kucinich's department of peace...
Originally posted by BR
I don't believe citizenship should be granted at birth. I believe that is something that should be earned. I don't mind if it is earned through some community service and taking the same test as any immigrant does.
sounds fine to me
g
Originally posted by Kickaha
BR: People seem to prefer for the govt to take the money preemptively and promise to give it back later. Look at the success of SocSec! :P
(Talk about your compulsory, non-voluntary 'for the societal good' mechanisms...)
A lot has been said about military conscriptment... I see something as simple as doing fire tower watch for the Forest Service being qualifying. Or working for Habitat for Humanity, building houses. Or any number of things that will help people get skills at the same time as helping out society (ours and others) as a whole. One pay scale across the board, period. Think WPA, but compulsory.
and yeah to this too...
sorry, just getting back to this thread...
as for free handouts affecting people adversely (not to get too far off topic)...after my mother's nasty divorce she was raising 3 kids on her own...she went on food stamps and then back to college...at that time i think she even went on welfare for a year or two...but she got her degree and worked for 22 years after that teaching learning disabled middle school and high school students (possibly the toughest job known to mankind)...as for it creating a culture of handouts?? none of her three boys have taken a day of government handouts..we are all hard working boys....so which is the rule and which is the exception?
now back to your regularly scheduled program....
g
ps...thanks for all the "measured" responses and great thoughts and ideas (i kinda missed AO...don't know how long that will last though....)...and good to hear from paul and other young people who this would impact...as for the loss of income...wouldn't the money toward college be the same as earning cash?? sure it won't pay for beer and microwave 7-11 burritos, but it would be like savings used for bills?? anyway, i wouldn't mind variations to the program...it would take a lot of work and planning, but it could be done...but will it is a much different question
and would my wife kill me if this went forward and my daughters went off to the sahara or someplace far away, that is the more important question.
Originally posted by Kickaha
1) Great in *theory*, but guess what... the teeming masses don't agree. They want the benefits of a greater societal body without any of the responsibilities. I'm with you in principle, but the practicality weighs otherwise in my mind.
2) There's a lot of 'the gummint don't own *me*!' in there, but nothing about the fact that *we should own the government*! We lost that when we lost the culture of responsibility, and guess what - the government is no longer ours. I see *any* method of infusing a sense of responsibility back into the culture as a step towards *citizenry ownership of the government again*.
I think this was in response to the article I posted, so...
In response to pt. 1, I will say that it is not the people that want this. If you look at survey after survey, you will see that most of Americans think the government is too big, and it tends not to be individuals that expand bureaucracy, but bureaucracy itself. A general ignorance combined notably with a depression in the 30s has allowed this to happen, rather than been instituted by Americans that "want the benefits of a greater societal body".
In response to pt. 1, first I'll point out an excerpt from the article:
The United States was founded on a radical notion: That the proper role of government is to protect the rights of citizens. In other words, individuals are the masters, and a (strictly limited) government is their servant.
I think you're right, we have lost that, but I don't think that Americans, or people in general, are any less responsible than they were 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Responsibility isn't culture specific, and it's arguably not even learned, it's simply the law of self preservation and advancement applied to sociology. You take away the oppressive, inefficient, and self-propagating bureaucracy, and people are forced to be their best or they don't make it. That's how life should work.
I reiterate, it's not that Americans like this statism, socialism, bureaucracy, etc, (although some ideologues do) but that they are uneducated, unwilling to change it, or some combination of those or other factors.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I agree with you in theory, but in practicality, I think it'll never fly.
You'll end up with a society that a) can't take care of itself (I'd argue we're already there), and b) isn't getting any artificial support from the government.
What's that quote about any government being three meals away from a revolution? Not that that's necessarily a *bad* thing with the way things are going, mind you, but I don't think it's a situation that would lead to anything but a military state.
No, in my opinion the only way to ensure a safe measure of putting a sense of responsibility into the populace is to use carrot and stick, as usual. Carrot: college $, full citizenship, voting rights, whatever. Stick: no more subsidies 'just because'. You've gotta have both until the transition is done.
The way you put a measure of responsibility into the populace is by allowing the government to judge. If the government refuses to judge, then we ought to lower the tax burden so that private charities can judge.
The reason the rights are still here is because some are inalienable and others we won't take away from other out of fear we might need them ourselves someday. However the real issue with economic need is judgement.
I would bet almost everyone here knows someone who took some government aid and then got themselves right back out of the hard spot they were in and never needed it again.
I would also bet that almost everyone here knows someone who seems to chronically undermind themselves using the government and never seems to get off the dole and back to the real world.
I see this exhibited by government where I work as well which is a school. There are no bad kids. They are troubled, disadvantaged, perhaps even mentally or emotionally disturbed in a manner which will require them to go to a more restrictive classroom environment or be medicated. (Read small ratio and lots more supervision) They are, of course, never bad.
It is the same thing with government granting assistance. You can read about private organizations that actually make demands that do help people. However government organizations just pass out goodies. No real demands. No judgements about the attempts to meet quasi-demands. Most of the time, little to no real progress, growth or improvement, resembling very much.. public schools.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Do you consider yourself a "Market Fundamentalist?" I think I might post a thread on that topic soon. ...Because it seems like you have some of the most extreme pro-business opinions possible, and I obviously think that approach is problematic. Why? I'm not entirely certain. I think it just doesn't seem *fair* to establish such a ruthless system that seemingly depends entirely on charity. I mean, what if the markets are down and no one wants to give? There's just no security.
Do not tax revenues go down when the markets are down as well?
Last time I checked, when the market lost a few trillion in value, all the government tax coffers dried up as well. They all hit big deficits, all made big cuts and services, and all hunkered down until the cash started flowing in again.
I really don't see how the government has any sort of ability to guarantee anything. They can demand their donations, but if no one has anything to donate, they are in no better a position. In fact since they aren't allowed to judge who really should get assistance, they often cut it for everyone which really causes a lot more harm.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I'm "personally responsible." I saved for my future. But somehow and for some reason it's gone- perhaps by forces beyond my control. Again, what if the markets are down and no one wants to give? There's just no security.
You've just had a grown up realization. There is no security in this world. So voting for someone who promises it to you is stupid be they Republican or Democrat. This is why even Republicans have started to grouse about all the Bush spending on "security." Defense is one matter. Trying to make every possible circumstance of life "secure" from terrorism is impossible. Bush is blowing huge holes in our budget in an attempt to prove it isn't. When someone claims they want to blow huge amounts of spending out the door to make us safe from life's tragedies, it will never work.
All we are promised by the world and by our founders is the pursuit. You can be a totally honest and good person your whole life and get struck down by a car, by cancer, by anything. All you get is a shot at a good life. If you work hard, try your best, you might get to die in your bed as a happy old man. If you've got some religion, you believe you will go someplace nicer. If not, well, you are happy worm food.
Nick
Originally posted by Kickaha
1) Great in *theory*, but guess what... the teeming masses don't agree. They want the benefits of a greater societal body without any of the responsibilities. I'm with you in principle, but the practicality weighs otherwise in my mind.
2) There's a lot of 'the gummint don't own *me*!' in there, but nothing about the fact that *we should own the government*! We lost that when we lost the culture of responsibility, and guess what - the government is no longer ours. I see *any* method of infusing a sense of responsibility back into the culture as a step towards *citizenry ownership of the government again*.
The teeming masses do consider that they have been responsible in that they have paid the taxes for the government. (Actually even then most don't as the bottom 50% pays 4% of the taxes.)
The reason people have lost the culture of responsibility is simply because the government asked them to do so while turning over their money. Look at the history of taxation and it almost always starts at 1% on the rich. When you give up this 1%, you get some great benefit and a belief that some aspect of society will no longer be bad ever again.
Social Security started at 1%. Have the images of poor old people, eating pet food while risking being tossed out on the street since they can't afford X ever gone away? (X is currently prescription drugs which both the right and left have bought into)
Social Security contributions have kept rising over the years to a little over 13% for most people. Amazingly, it is still always going "broke" which is of course why they raised the rate every other time starting from 1%.
It has basically proven you cannot buy security. In the next few years when the pay as you go program starts recalling the bonds it has issued, the fit really is going to hit the shan as they say.
No one will feel secure then.
Nick
You have made such a grand generalization that you all tacidly think you understand, and which is supposedly the same in all cases . . .
and then you take this absurd generality and blame another absurd generality (the "culture of irresponsibility") on yet another absurd generality (its all the "Govment's fault!) . . the only generality that rings true here is that, generally speaking, you are throwing around a bunch of tired cliches
as an american citizen i get alot---freedom (mostly), opportunity (will never be a rich as a trump or a bush or a cheney or a kerry, but can do alright if i work at it), free education (mostly again), etc etc
so what is the big deal about asking to give??
we take easily, we give grudingly, if at all
anyways...off to work, gotta make money to pay taxes to .....
g
Originally posted by thegelding
instead of responsibility...how about the childhood lesson of give and take...
as an american citizen i get alot---freedom (mostly), opportunity (will never be a rich as a trump or a bush or a cheney or a kerry, but can do alright if i work at it), free education (mostly again), etc etc
so what is the big deal about asking to give??
we take easily, we give grudingly, if at all
anyways...off to work, gotta make money to pay taxes to .....
g
The fault in the reasoning is that you assume someone has to give you that freedom and thus you owe something in return. The Declaration of Independence is clear in stating these rights are inalienable. They are not traded or given. They are yours alone.
Nick
Listening to the lot of you talk about "responsibility" is just silly. . . [/QUOTE]
So don't listen.
You have made such a grand generalization that you all tacidly think you understand, and which is supposedly the same in all cases . . . [/B]
It must be nice to claim all knowledge while claiming all ignorance for everyone else. You are welcome to claim it isn't for everyone else or even that it is just for me. But then you should admit your are breaking the posting guidelines by obscurely calling someone stupid or ignorant.
and then you take this absurd generality and blame another absurd generality (the "culture of irresponsibility") on yet another absurd generality (its all the "Govment's fault!) . . the only generality that rings true here is that, generally speaking, you are throwing around a bunch of tired cliches
Yes, how dare us generalize. You are welcome to show us these specifics of which you speak by example in your own posts.
Nick
I find it interesting how people are comparing this to social security...
as far as I can tell this was implemented because politicians didn't have the inclination to think about the under 18 citizen who didn't vote and would be losing 7% of their paycheck every week to pay for Seniors who didn't plan for retirement... I don't see how that is my responsibility...
on the other hand this "forced service" would be an opportunity to DO something with my life that would be hard to do otherwise--not just skimming some money off the top that I have no say in...
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Originally posted by pfflam
Listening to the lot of you talk about "responsibility" is just silly. . . Yes, how dare us generalize. You are welcome to show us these specifics of which you speak by example in your own posts.
Nick
I am specifically speaking about the generalizations thrown around that place the blame for something called "the cultural loss of responsibility" (whatever that means?!) onto the Government.
It is easy to see all the country's problems in a single light if you (and perhaps not you, Trumpt, in this situation) want only to say that the people in this culture who remain poor, those who are not finding a decent living, nor are they capable of getting insured etc etc . . . the ailments of poverty, are all the problem of a "culture without responsibility"
what I see in that is itself a kind of scapegoating: not facing up to being a part of a civilization where to be in this culture is to be with other people and to share in the general well being of that culture
what I see happening in this discussion (perhaps you are not being reffered to here) is that all of that 'responsibility' is being shunted aside in favor of some vague notion of some sort of 'responsibility' that has been destroyed by some vague misguided soviasocialistic evil government . . . destroyed for everybody except those posting here who have all pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and got themselves a JOB!!
Really, it is a kind of blaming that refuses 'responsibility' by placing the burden of all our social ills on 'Da Man' . . . and blaming all those who have used programs . . . also, it is seems to be about self-congratulations: see those poor slaves who don't know the meaning of 'responsibility'?!?! they are dupes to the big gray menace . . . But not ME . . of course!
Its at that level of abstraction that I see some generalities floating around . . . responsibility certainly is NOT being taken . . . but when looked at this way it seems that those who use the word the most are those not taking it . . .
I think that there has been good in wellfare reform, and there still can be better ideas in place
An idea that I like is if those people who need it and want it sign on for a commitment that involves civil-work . . . ie: 'giving back'
as I mentioned above, perhaps making wellfare have a flavor of military service . . .
beyond that, I wanted to respond to Gelding's original post and found it lost in a see of "responsibility' and so, I said what I said.