Garnet's Wiki Blog from October, 2008

When fiscal conservatives complain about the ever increasing cost of government programs to "take care" of people, they are frequently accused by liberals of wanting to let people "live under a bridge" without the safety nets that liberals have dreamed up. Many in our society are very willing to chase whichever politican offers more "goodies", not caring when the politician says he will take the money from "big corporations" or "rich people". In the past, American's were willing to bet on pursuing with hard work their own dreams to ensure their future prosperity, but today, too many people have given up and want to demand no strings support from those whose success they envy.

While care of seniors, and the cost of providing medical care for them, needs our attention, (modern society has substituted expensive government safety nets for the intergenerational family support structures of the past), one of the biggest areas of concern in our society should be for the next generation who are seeking to make their way, and will some day be depended on to pay for the expensive government programs that liberals are dreaming up.

Many of these kids are likely to be among those who don't have health insurance. They may be more drammatically affected by the rising costs of rent, or even worse, eviction from a residence whose landlord is being foreclosed upon. They are vulnerable to being fired for baseless sexual harrassment claims by customers, or to being fired when they vent their frustration about baseless complaints to an investigating supervisor. When some of these individuals feel "trapped" in their current situation, that they have no where else to turn, is that all we should consider, or should a deeper look be done?

In California juvenile court waiting rooms, there is a magazine with a title along the lines of "Your Child and The Law". It tells parents about their responsibilies to take care of their children until age 18, except in very limited circumstances when the child petitions for emancipation.

A parent sitting in that waiting room, who has been trying to do everything possible to help their child, but is helpless and yet still responsible in the situation of a 17 year old refusing to obey court orders can be very frustrated by those requirements. Even more frustrating can be the section that gives the name of "pushout" to the phenomenon of parents who have to have the child move out at 18. Many parents may have spent years trying to prepare their child with warnings about the reality that living in the home past 18 depends on the child either

going to school,
or working to pay rent,
and in either case, being a non-disruptive member of the household.

To see that liberals have given a term like "pushout" to this, with the implicit shift in blaim to the parents, can be very frustrating for the caring parent. How about instead using a term like "turn away" to represent the child who has turned away from a refusal to honor their parents and give a proper response to the support that the family has offered?

The real difference is that conservatives favor personal responsibility and giving people a rope to help themselves. Many conservatives will readily admit to the ropes they were offered by others. And they used those ropes, they didn't depend on a safety net. But today, there are many resting in safety nets who could be providing services and climbing ropes out of their current situation. In some of these cases, these people are young adults who have passed up countless ropes given to help them on their way:

Parents arranging for housing rentals where the child doesn't keep their rent paid
Parents watching as the child has opportunities to work for their landlord in exchange for unpaid rent, but then doesn't show up for the work
Employers offering training that the child chooses not to take advantage of
Children taking advantage of a boss being on vacation to think they can get away with shorting the boss on hours
Children pursuing illicit substances, then wondering why they lose jobs
Parents willing to provide working opportunities for their children, but the children refuse to take advantage of the opportunity

In these kinds of cases, often the "need" of a safety net can be traced to repeated refusal to use the ropes offered. How much responsibility should society bear for those who refuse to do what is necessary to lift themselves out of their present circumstances?

Not to pick on single moms, but the principle illustrates my point...
Mothers on welfare have an implicit contract with the state that provides them between $8,000 and $15,000 in benefits:

Don't work
Don't marry an employed male

Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism

Can we blaim the conservative who acknowledges the ropes he was given and used, and frustration at being forced to pay for safety nets for those who are too busy practicing "entitlement" and "blaim" to have time to use a rope to better themselves. Why shouldn't we all be frustrated with those who would rather use the safety nets like a hammock than to work hard and climb the ropes like their forefathers did? Why do we blaim the conservative who says "No one gave me a hammock, why should I have to pay for a safety net to be used like a hammock by others?"

Unknown macro: {asin}

Garnet's Wiki Blog from October, 2008

Blog Posts: October 2008

The other side of the story