@J.B. Schmidt (continued)...created by the fluctuations in the economy. Somehow you seem to think that liberals are out to steal your hard earned income. Liberals don't believe in equal outcomes but equal opportunities. Now, if you believe that assuring people have their basic survival and security needs met is guaranteeing equal outcomes, then you clearly believe that people shouldn't be guaranteed a right to live; and this coming from such a strong proponent of Right to Life. With what you have written; J.B., I seriously question the accuracy of your moral compass. You show a lack of empathy, compassion and concern for the least of us. You seemed to have missed some things in your religious studies and training.

@Lyle
The problem with your stance and the stance of the progressive movements is that the 'needs' are intentionally non-specific. The Obama-phones as they are now called was originally started to provide the poor with land line phones. I don't have a problem with that for emergency reasons. Cell phones are a luxury, even to those who are not considered poor. It is a subsidy gone bad as they all do.

You continue to fixate on the material, you are not fixing anything. By supplying kids with 3 meals a day, what have you accomplished? Sure the kids are fed; but you have increased the delinquency of the parents and taught the kids where their meals must come from. Food is less a factor childhood crime then delinquent parents; however liberals focus on the material and not the true cultural deficient.

What is basic survival? A cell phone. How about the idea being floated about food stamps for dogs? I saw a story of family of 4 that was existing comfortably on $14000 per year. The government is spending nearly 5 times that amount per poor family. Is that $68k basic survival? Or is it a materialistic statement of liberal policy?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-a-family-of-four-manages-to-live-well-on-just--14-000-per-year-174803218.html

@Lyle
As for you my religious training? Why are you so fixated on my religion? Isn't the tolerant left blind to those kinds of things?

In my personal life, I pay my taxes, give to my church and donate to charity as often I can. I give up my personal time for my church and for my community. What I see is a government, whose power was allowed by God; being poor stewards of the tax revenue (blessings) they have received. It is my duty address that and make our country both fiscally responsible (which is not) and begin to address the true issues within the lower classes and not simply throw material possessions at them for votes.

Lyle,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Schmidt didn't say that basic needs should not be met; rather, he said that outcomes will not be the same for all, and liberals should stop complaining about it.

If you look at Schmidt's example of the mortgage crisis, and think back to the late 90s when Clinton threatened to prosecute banks if they did not give loans to people who were not qualified, you can't help but see the point. Owning a house is not a basic need, yet many politicians and media make those types of comparisons the issue.

You may still remember, Lyle, that Peirs Morgan stood in front of Romney's home day after day talking about Romeny's lifestyle. Why?

@J.B. Schmidt....I really don't care about your religion, but you talk out of one side of your mouth about Christianity and out of the other talking about not taking care of the poor. Seems a bit contradictory. I am not even Christian, but I have studied the teachings extensively. You have some real inconsistencies in your personal dogma.

You may not care that kids aren't getting three meals a day, but I do. No one in this nation should be faced with hunger when we have the resources to prevent it. As far as parents not taking responsibility for their kids, it they don't, we have to. We don't punish and desert children because of the sins of the parents, or do we?

As far as cell phones are concerned, they are limited to 200 minutes per month and it turns out to be cheaper than providing a land line.

The mortgage crisis was financial institutions seeing an opportunity to make a lot of money by gaming the system. I am strongly against home ownership for those that can't afford it. What the congress did that led to the real estate bubble is to make it illegal to "red line". The smart guys in the financial institutions figured out how to game the system and bilk the American taxpayer out of a trillion dollars and for the most part got away with it.

@Lyle
When did I say that we needed to stop feeding kids? I am simply saying that liberal policy creates materialism because it only deals with the physical desires and establishes the notion that a specific standard of living is entitled.

To claim that this standard of living is nothing more the basic survival is a lie. As I stated we are paying out $68k per poor family, that is considerably more then basic survival and yet we have poor. Why? Because the progressive policy you support teaches that people need not concern themselves with anything other then selfish materialism and in turn the money is wasted. It never creates the value for work, effort and pride in ones own accomplishments that is associated with an individual that does not feel entitled to an existence.

If I appear to be inconsistent with my religion, then I argue that you either don't grasp this topic or you know less about my religion that you profess.

@J.B. Schmidt....Where are you getting $68k a year from. I want to see those sources and they better be clean and well documented.

@Lyle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88767476/The-American-Welfare-State-How-We-Spend-Nearly-1-Trillion-a-Year-Fighting-Poverty-And-Fail-Cato-Policy-Analysis-No-694
This one has the most accurate data; however, is least liked by liberals.

Now you may describe how the source is not believable. Tell me their numbers are wrong because they count certain items as welfare that you don’t consider welfare. You can write a lengthy dissertation on how much republicans hate the wealthy. Not unlike the other liberal on the internet. However, none of them can argue the factual numbers; they simply try to move them around by changing their description.

The truth is, using the government numbers and dividing by families below the poverty level we are paying $60k+. Unfortunately, the materialistic progressive government monster that has been created eats most of this money.

@Lyle
The problem is that as the government continues to create policies that claim to fix poverty through material possessions (money, phones, food); people believe that to be true. Yet, poverty hasn't significantly changed since 1980 while spending has skyrocketed.

It is no longer about fixing the problem. It is about sustaining the materialistic desires of both the liberal politician and the entitlement voter.

@J.B. Schmidt....I am well familiar with Michael D. Tanner's ideological positions and the article you cite is consistent with his general thinking. However, he starts his article with a bias that influences his overall presentation of material. I have no problem with the numbers he cites, he have taken the raw numbers from government sources. What I do take exception to is the way he spins the numbers to give the impression that those receiving benefits for a family of three are actually directly receiving $ 60k + in benefits. He is adding the direct benefits with administrative costs to come up with his numbers. Totally misleading to the uniformed reader and leads them to believe direct benefits are much greater than they actually are. To be honest, the article should be titled more toward the bureaucratic administrative costs rather than direct benefit distribution. You dutifully passed on the misinformation without fully understanding the implications.

Tanner brings up the primary objection to his own argument. He clearly states that we have no way of knowing how bad abject poverty would be without the anti-poverty programs initially introduced during the Johnson Administration. Also, he doesn't differentiate differences of who receives what and what proportion of benefits. Therefore, some receive a larger proportion of benefits when compared to others. This leads to the rejection of broad brush claims, making them moot.

@Lyle
It bolsters my point that materialism is the driving force behind liberal policy when it comes to government benefits.

The bureaucratic, big government, system is a money pig. It takes what it can simply for the sake of possessing it. The huge waste with the welfare system, typically going to those not poor, is driven by materialism. Those taking, via the function of a corrupt bureaucratic system, are doing so for their own comforts in life. Those propping up this system care not for others, but care only for the 'warm happies' they get in their fully bellies. Those poor taking more then their 'fair share' don't care for others, they are only out for themselves. The pig of big government and progressive policy creates the concept of material possessions being the 'needs' of life.

If the government spends $60k per family, what is preventing the elimination of poor? The material desires of those able to get a hand in the piggy bank after it is removed from the tax payer.

If the government blows money like a sailor on shore leave, driven not by good but the materialistic desire of those elected; why wouldn't those doing the electing be driven by the same desire?

I am not calling for an end to welfare and my broad brush paints progressive policy, not the people it sucks in. For it has created an electorate driven by materialism, with little respect for the country or their fellow citizens.

@J.B. Schmidt....So is the criticism of the poor or those that service the poor? Part of the bureaucratic morass is not just an effect of materialism, but the system is designed to create multilevel accountability. Another issue that creates the inefficiencies is that poverty isn't dependent on just one variable, but multiple variables. There has evolved specialists who are focused on each of those variables. This makes sense in light of the fact that you wouldn't expect someone to make medical decisions about patient care if they have only been trained in child welfare issues. The 126 agencies that are cited are organizations of specialists and experts. The greatest problem that I can see is the redundancy between agencies creating inefficiencies and bureaucratic bloating. I would more than support an effort to go through all the agencies and streamline them and create greater efficiencies for program supervision and accountability. Your usage of terms such as corruption, et al; is in fact not intentional corruption, but the impact of inefficiency and basic bureaucratic culture. I also don't understand why you would fault people that work in the various agencies for being concerned about their employment, just like any other worker. To accuse them of somehow promoting the continuation of poverty for their own material gain is a serious indictment and untrue. (continued)

@J.B. Schmidt (continued),,,,,My wife works with abused and neglected children and she certainly doesn't want to profit off of the problem. She works everyday to alleviate the problem by working with the families. She has no control over preventing the problem, but deals with the tragedy of child abuse and neglect. Now are you stating that she shouldn't be compensated for her professional work? I can tell you that she wouldn't be doing what she is doing if she didn't have a committment to addressing the problem. She certainly doesn't hardly make enough to compensate for her work and working conditions. You need to stop looking at government like looking at a forest and start seeing the faces of government like you would looking at individual trees. Those that you so vehemently criticize are caring and committed human beings just like you.

@Lyle
I am not going to attack your wife. She sounds like an angel and a little out of your league. :)

Obviously, as I posted, there are people sucked into this system that mean well.

Lyle,,,,,,What happens when the amount of people "needing help" from the system exceeds the ability of the system to supply "help"? The "help" you talk about is provided by the labor of others. So what percent is a tax of their labor fair? Lyle, if you want to help the poor go ahead. Unfortunately many do gooders have no problem spending other peoples money to make themselves feel important. The fact is that ultimately a society will collapse when demand exceeds supply.

@Luke....Apples and oranges. What does Myanmar have to do with the discussion?

@Lyle
Your materialism blinds you from Luke's point. Those people live on considerably less than the American poor. However, they are content. They appreciate the blessings they have and unlike many poor in the inner city, that have been raised by liberal policy, who live bitter and envious of those with more.

Lyle,

I can't believe you said that. I really can't.

Please let me know if you are still clueless and unashamed so that I can set you straight.

@J.B. Schmidt....You're the one who brought up materialism in the US. Their contentment is entirely relative. Again, you apply a broad brush.

Like I said, Liberal voters are stupid; Liberal politicians are evil. Look at Rube.

@Luke....I am not as clueless as you would suggest. I have traveled the world and know of the horrendous conditions people live in. But, I am only reminding you of the relativity of your position and statement.

Lyle,

No, you do not get my point, because if you had you would never have mentioned that you have traveled. What does travel have to do with this?

The people I mentioned had two things that the poor in our country do not have. They had a good education due to their thirst for knowledge and a happy social community. But what would you say they were missing, Lyle? WHAT???

Here's a hint, Lyle. If I go to Mayanmar, one of the greatest honors I could give them is to offer them a book. What would the average "disadvantaged" American think if I gave them a book?

To help you out , Lyle, let me make it clear that I am making no comparisons about geographical location, race, or even the availability of literature. I am taking about the liberal perception of things, which I believe is blinding you to the comparison I have made, making you unable to grasp how distorted things have become.

LOL... Very insightful, big Luke. U and Lyle have more in common than u think.

@Luke....You are completely discounting cultural relativity, the values, norms, morays and folkways. Whether you want to admit it or not, you're still doing unequal comparisons.

@Lyle

No, Lyle, I am making the very point you think I am missing. You think money is the problem. I think socialization is the problem.

You also think one kind of exotic ethnic experience particular to some remote group of people differentiates the people in my comparison. But I say history demonstrates that the characteristics of healthy and successful groups validates that the characteristics are common to many peoples. Not only are the characterics common, they are the very ones necessarily employed by every one of them that has succeeded and continues to do so.

So, Lyle, I continue along the same line of thought....

The Germans who came to America over the last 100 years have tended to do quite well. In general, they pursued success through hard work and apprenticeships, instead of education. They have done quite well. In fact, they own the majority of rental property in our area of the state. What do those Germans have in common with the people in Myanmar?

Quite a bit.

@Luke..You're amazing in the way you twist and stretch. You know I am an advocate of successful socialization and education. I am also cognizant of what is necessary to be successful and there is no secret to achievement. As you say it really doesn't matter the group, but there is cultural relevance unique to each group. German's have been coming to this area every since the initial "48s" came here. Besides doing well materially they were also responsible for Wisconsin progressivism, socialism, unionization, etc. Each ethnic group has added to the richness of the area.

Are you and other conservatives suggesting that those living in poverty and in the inner city are somehow sub human, since they may not share your value system or moral structure? What are you really saying about these people? A consistent message that I keep hearing from the right is that these people are to stupid, too lazy, and that liberals, using the government, are keeping them in the ghettos so they can be conveniently used as voting pawns. That view is not only wrong but falls into a whole new category of cynicism. When all is said and done, rendering your stated position, blame the poor for being poor and blame those who are concerned about their well being and willing to do something about it.

@Lyle

Again, my point had nothing to do with cultures. My point was that each group was socialized to seek success through utilizing their own resources. Although each ethnic group will have its own emphasis, the point is that consistent effort will be rewarded.

As for your second paragraph, I'm a bit dumbfounded. As far as I know, I am the only one on the Patch that works directly with and for the poor on a regular ( meaning daily) basis, both in the US and abroad.

In addition, I have no idea what the heck you are talking about when you suggest that I think that the poor are subhuman. I have never said such a thing. In fact, if you would like to read someone who shares my perspective regarding the scope of the problem and some of the solutions, please see this link below. Keep in mind that I do not agree with this person on many things, but I do agree with what he says here:

http://shorewood.patch.com/blog_posts/mea-culpa-admitting-when-youre-wrong

Finally, I continually distinguish between the chronically poor and the rest of the poor. Among the chronically poor there are many/most that are exactly as lazy and stupid as you describe, due in part, largely, to socialization. The rest are only temporarily poor due to all sorts of reasons beyond their control, but they and/ or their children are on their way out because they are consistently working towards that goal.

So, Lyle, I'm going to repost what I said above, because it goes much deeper than you have noticed. You haven't noticed because of the reasons Schmidt detailed.

The fact is that the kind of success I describe below made those people wealthy in immaterial ways . In our country, that type of wealth is positively correlated with material wealth. (In other words, notice the play on words involving "wealth.")

............,,.

I went to Myanmar a few years ago and spent two weeks with a minority group that was hiding from the military. They grew up in temporary shacks with dirt floors, yet they spent their free time reading English and Asian textbooks on any topic they could find. They loved their children and took care of one another. They were truly wealthy.

@Luke....Finally, someone from the right who distinguishes from those that are chronically poor from those that experience a period of acute poverty. I think J.B. should have more clearly differentiated between those who are materially poor and those that are poor of character or morality, and that is not just in the inner cities.

I come from a tradition of hard work and an emphasis on scholarship. In my community, if you graduated from high school, your kids went on to get their BA or BS. Their kids were expected to gone on to graduate school and become professionals. If I was a rag picker, my kids would be expected to go into retail, and on the process goes. For my people, we have found the US to be a blessing that allows people who apply themselves the opportunity to succeed, however how one gauges that success. But even if we have been successful, we have never forgotten our humble roots and the ancestor that was the rag picker.

I am disturbed as much as anyone else about the able bodied who either choose not to pursue legal work or is shut out of doing so because of a lack of opportunity. What I refuse to do is apply a broad brush and label all that are receiving assistance as belonging to the group who are lazy.

My position is that I have accepted that there will always be those who, for one reason or another, will require public assistance. (continued)

@Luke (continued)....I support giving them the assistance they need and not whine about the fact that we are doing it. The chronically poor doesn't constitute that great a burden on society and the benefit is the long term social stability of our communities. The plight of the poor is a diversion from the really important issues of economic transition and what the future will hold for our society. Adjustment to globalization is the real issue.

@Lyle

We aren't that far apart, so I'm not going to attempt to divide too many hairs. Besides, I'm tired and am pecking away on a mobile device.

I need, however, to step up in J.B.'s defense, since I still think that you do not get his point. His goal was not to paint the poor with a broad brush. His point is that the left has fostered both latent and overt materialism in the poor. I happen to agree with his point in several ways, so I may return to that issue if I have some time. But let me circle around and approach the issue from a different angle.

The availability of government support has had a number of unintended consequences which result in alienation and dehumanization, which are the byproducts of materialism. For example, people now expect the government to care for all their elderly relatives because the government at one time began a program to assist only the poor. Elderly relatives are no longer cared for by their own families much as a result. When Oma (grandma) can't make it on her own, we do something unheard of for most of human history, which is to call someone who is not related and ask them what they are going to do about the problem. This saves us money and relieves us of the need to get involved. This is but one example of how government has fostered materialism and moved us toward emotional individualism, but all the other government support programs have the same unintended affect/effect.

@Luke...I think with the economic transition that globalization is causing will impact the role of the family. I foresee a reemergence of the extended family structure replacing the American traditional nuclear family. The family of the future will be that of the past with the younger generation taking care of their elderly relatives.

@Lyle

Perhaps my point was not clear. My previous post was making the point that the government is taking on the role of the extended family. The availability of money attracts more and more people, thereby weakening and undermining family, regardless of the form it takes.

In my example, the person called to resolve the problem was the government, or a service receiving money from the government. Ironically, this trend actually results in a lower standard of living for the overall population.

@Luke....Fundamentally I don't disagree with your point that outside agents have taken over the traditional roles of the extended family. I also retain the belief that we will see the reemergence of the extended family as a solution to many of the social problems we are currently experiencing. It may mean that much of the subsidies that people are used to receiving to purchase or depend on will have to be terminated. I see a great deal of positive benefits to nuclear families reconvening into the extended family units. McMansions make more sense if you have 12 to 16 people living in them rather than just 4. :>D

@Lyle

Tell me about it. I live in one of thise homes with three generations. One generation is moving out and the other has about 6 months to live.

@Jack....I suggest that you wash and leave being unwashed behind.

@Mr Lundt....Giving away other people's money; seriously? It is the money we all pay as our share for living in a stable and productive society. If you want to call it correctly, call it our citizenship dues.

Lyle
That is a load of rubbish but is the way the left like to justify taking other people's money and spending on garbage.

You collect and allocate dies based on a agenda based on a mythical view of fairness. You also give people money that convince could not otherwise have earned the money themselves. While there is a gain of truth in what you say-- we all should contribute to roads and the military...the actual reality is so distorted and sick as to not be recognizable. There is a jaded tax system and a redistribution of wealth that robs adults of their dignity.

THe RESULTS of your scheme is unadulterated failure and greed...its never enough for the left.

Dues and membership in clubs is voluntary. Your attempt to justify your behaviour is typical of the left....without merit.

@Mr Lundt....I would seriously count what you're writing if you had a clue of what your saying.

Lyle
That is a very lefty response.

When you are stumped you mock/ act superior.

When you repeatedly have low expectations for people... they live up to your standards. You now have a water base and a few like yourself that really feel that without a nanny they would be doddering tools.

It easier to take peoples money rather than work for it...a key dem tenant.

@Mr Lundt....Survival expectations for people is hardly unrealistic expectations. That doesn't mean that I don't have higher expectations for those that have the opportunity and resources to take advantage of them. That is clearly judging on a persons achievements and merit.

"Survival expectations for people is hardly unrealistic expectations"

Please Lyle. Drama and massive exaggeration do not help your case. Start looking at all of the able bodied adults that are perpetually on the dole.

THE VAST majority of people on the dole could do without---the fact is that they don't need to because your policies enable them. More to the point your POLICY AND RHETORIC have them convinced that were it not for the nanny state---they would be unable to eat.

Yet there the fact that you keep reducing your expectations on people, somehow makes you feel better inside. WHY? Because you take away other peoples money.

Should ALL government help be stopped of course not . Ignore your knee jerk to show dramatic display you love.

@Mr Lundt....I agree, that if someone is an able bodied adult that they should be working. However, if you haven;t noticed there seems to be a shortage of jobs at the moment, especially for the unskilled and under educated. Jobs have been declining since the Clinton years. The kinds of jobs these people would normally pursue are gone. Even skilled workers are having trouble. I am open to suggestions as to what can be done to put these people to work. What do you purpose?

@Carbon Bigfuut....Are you claiming to be a tax protestor? You may not like your tax money going for social programs and I don't like my money going for the military, but I follow the majority and pay my share.

All the Jewish women I know are actually pretty thrifty.

@WaitingForTheSpark....Nice anti-Semitic statement. Why don't you identify yourself and we'll add your name to the ADL list.

@Carbon Bigfuut....So there are people that pay any income tax. It just so happens they don't earn enough to pay. However, they pay other taxes.

"So there are people that pay any income tax." Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

"It just so happens they don't earn enough to pay." Yes, there are those that fall into the 0% income tax bracket. I was referring to those that money BACK from the government without paying in ANYTHING in income taxes.

"However, they pay other taxes." I was referring to income taxes. Your original post was about materialism, and there is a tax specifically for that, called the property tax. It is levied based on the value of property owned.

And please spell my name correctly next time.

@WaitingForTheSpark....I see no purpose for your statement. My wife and daughters would take extreme exception to your statements. Your statement added nothing to the discussion and added a tangential diversion that brought up an anti-Semitic myth. Just as with any other group we have people that are as guilty as anyone with a focus on materialism, but it is not a general characteristic of Jewish women.

Mike. Right On! Tax them bastards dry.

@c....Even from ivory towers, people understand there has always been and will be the poor and ignorant. That doesn't change the fact that in a nation with our abundant resources, that we can assure that people in need have their survival and security needs met. There is no basis to your statement that liberals want to shift the middle class to the poor class in order to expand the democratic voter pool. I don't care about the Democrats or Republicans or liberals verses conservatives, since the labels don't really mean much anyway.

The transition from a local or national economy to a global economy has more to do with the downward mobility on the middle class and the stagnation of upward mobility by the poor classes. The globalization process is creating a regression toward the mean; whereas parity will eventually be reached and business won't find off shoring is such a great advantage. This process will take some time, but will eventually bring back the stasis that everyone is searching for.