Multiple Choice Question
Blockhead
Posts: 1,538
Say you are a parent raising a child/children and since you are a great parent and want absolutly the best for him or her in terms of success in both personal (family) and social (community) which parenting style would you use.
A. Teach your child responsiblties: Have them engage in chores around the house/neighborhood with either money/privlage reward. Teach them to take pride in their work and actions. Make sure they are responsible for their actions and face consequenes. Show them the different paths to success to fit their individuality and be willing to put money/aid into helping them achieve that.
or
B. Give your Child what he/she wants with no responsibilities: Give them a weekly allowance with having them help around the house or neighborhood. Let them do inadequate work both in school and home without any repercussions. Don't teach them responsibilities because there will always be someone to blame/bail them out. Don't set any boundries or rules (no regulation). Do not put in the time to locate the different avenues of sucess for your child and let them do whatever they want without guidance.
I am sure (hope) most of you would pick A. If so, wouldn't you want the gov. to implement this same type of "parenting program" on welfare recipients. If we really want to help these people wouldn't we want them to put in the same effort? But the Gov. runs the program like B. which does nothing for the individual / individuals family or the community. Why do people continually consist on running the program like B? You know who you are...
A. Teach your child responsiblties: Have them engage in chores around the house/neighborhood with either money/privlage reward. Teach them to take pride in their work and actions. Make sure they are responsible for their actions and face consequenes. Show them the different paths to success to fit their individuality and be willing to put money/aid into helping them achieve that.
or
B. Give your Child what he/she wants with no responsibilities: Give them a weekly allowance with having them help around the house or neighborhood. Let them do inadequate work both in school and home without any repercussions. Don't teach them responsibilities because there will always be someone to blame/bail them out. Don't set any boundries or rules (no regulation). Do not put in the time to locate the different avenues of sucess for your child and let them do whatever they want without guidance.
I am sure (hope) most of you would pick A. If so, wouldn't you want the gov. to implement this same type of "parenting program" on welfare recipients. If we really want to help these people wouldn't we want them to put in the same effort? But the Gov. runs the program like B. which does nothing for the individual / individuals family or the community. Why do people continually consist on running the program like B? You know who you are...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I just wish everyone's parents had taught them not to judge.
Also, did you just start a new thread so you wouldn't have to answer the questions posed to you in the other one?
I knew exactly what you were getting at before I finished the first two snetences. But its a crappy analogy because your kids dont have kids depending on them.
I've said it before, I dont like the way some of welfare is run, but would you rather take it away and have them break into your house for food?
You're also forgetting the people who are the working poor... unless you still think that all people on welfare are sitting around watching thier 60 inch flat panels while they do drugs.
Exactly. Maybe a better question (though still a questionable analogy) would be whether you would cut off your children's basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) if they were not helping out as much as you wanted them to, particularly if they usually helped out but were having some problem that was keeping them from helping out at the moment.
a plane crashes and everyone survives and are washed up on a deserted island ... is the best means of survival:
A. Everyone is out for themselves. Survival of the fittest. People think only of themselves and will do whatever it takes to survive.
or
B. Everyone works together. People are treated equally for the most part. People make sacrifices to ensure the survival of the group.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The definition of a Child is - Some one who can't take care of them selves and is dependant on someone else to live, again correct me if I am wrong. So again, they should be treated like children if they can't take care of themselves enough to provide basic needs. My analogy is simply to point out that people who see no issues with how the gov. is running their program are only doing these poor people harm.
I am only pointing out personal experiences that I /my wife have had (her working in a inner city school)
Quick story - my wife and principles had to meet with a parent and student because he was doing so poorly, she tried to push some issue that he was unable to learn because of some disablity. He ended up getting this disability approved ( I am not sure the process, its been a while since I heard the story) and his mom infront of everybody said, "you know what this (insert boys name) you being disable get us more money, now Im going get you that Droid phone I promised to get you if you got this disablity"
What other thread are you refering to?
The thread about welfare recipients being tested for drugs.
So what do you think about American paternalism in other contexts then? Do you think we should have the right to control those nations for which we provide foreign aid, because they are relying on us to do so? Do you agree with IMF policy that countries receiving money from them must follow their rules? Do you think we should do whatever China wants, since we owe them so much money? Do they have a right to tell us how to run our lives? Are we China's children?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's amazing to me that there could even be such opposition to the sense of community & concern for our fellow man. It's also amazing to me that so many citizens of the United States have such little understanding of the tax system, and where government money comes from, and who benefits from it. Most importantly, it's amazing that some people (who promote education) have such little desire to learn. Sad. :(
it's the inability to think critically ... too many people now just absorb what they are fed without digesting it ...
just went to my facebook and one of my 'friends' had posted this as his status. Rather unbelievable. :shock: I'm not even sure where he's going with that and I'm scared to ask.
Sadly you don't know jack shit about the world we live in, everything everybody says that opposes you is a sweeping generalization, and only the poor on welfare manage to work 2 or more jobs supporting a family.
I would much rather help the poor than just give them handouts. There is a big difference. Your breeding generations of entitlement. Thats not how you solve problems.
I know your a woman and all but quit taking things so personal. Try looking at things objectively.
seems to me that you just wanted to passively/aggressively bait everyone into a similar discussion to the threads as last week, but you asked our opinion instead of just giving yours which has been well documented. i have said what i wanted to say in those threads and this one is going down the same road so this discussion is pointless.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Because I don't like the idea of starving children.
But let me guess... You shouldn't be allowed to put rules on people who recieve money for free.
Its almost as if you want these people to fail...
you mean these sweeping generalizations:
Speaking of looking at things objectively, you've made it quite obviuos that you think many people on govt assistance are watching huge TVs and enjoying all the new electronics out there.. Thats great -- TWO examples of system abuse. That must be how it is everywhere.
You keep saying that the govt is "raising their children" and if you really think that way there is no way to get you to look at this objectively. You want to fix the system by ending it and telling them to not have kids though. Sounds like a plan!
As i've said many times, I agree with you on some things, but your closemindedness is obvious and your ideas arent likely to work. Again, do you not think that people on govt assistance won't be breaking into YOUR house once the assistance ends?
where did i say that!?? ... listen - it's obvious you have a flawed view of the social infrastructure surrounding the poor ... if i had to guess - you get all your information from fox news and op-ed folks like o'reilly and beck ...
all i will say is this ... if you look at all the countries that are ranked high in the world in terms of the "best places to live" ... they are socialist in nature ... they believe in education and health care and providing social services in order to mitigate the number of people that are reliant on programs such as welfare ...
if you truly want these people to succeed than you need to provide that infrastructure that prevents this from happening in the first place, that doesn't result in a prosperity gap that is the massive ... how about spending some money on education instead of bombs?
You need to read more of my posts, I have never once wanted to END the system, I am simply calling for more rules/regulations to take away this sense of entitlement people have. I came up with a plan for those on welfare to do community service, but of corse we can't tell the precious down on their luck poor how to manage their time while living off tax payers money.
Again I am not calling for the end of gov. assistance, apply more regulations, give out only vouchers (not checks) that way they can only buy certin items. Have them practice responsiblity in terms of taking care of their property and have their communities work together (community service) but I know, I know those are terrible ideas when we can just give them money.
I am sorry but innercity schools while not the best are not the issue. Education perperation comes from home and there is a reason why academic families/private schools succeed most in education, because those families make it a priority. Innercity school have to provide everything for students, which shouldn't be their job. Parents should be able to get school supplies for their kids. University education should be more affordable but we only have that to blame on ourselves, with this dexplosion of student loans that has caused the prices to colleges to rise.
Isn't Welfare a socialistic program? Wow what an extremely sucessful program, that program is now breeding generational welfare and creating a entitlement/fast money culture that leads to a extremely high H.S. graduation rate and low preganacy rate :roll:
Yes we do need to provide an infrastructure that prevents those things from happening. Do you think just giving them money is providing that. A little personal responsibiliy might accomplish that maybe even a consequence or two. But no our program give more money to them when they have another child they can't afford. Go socialism!
I've never heard you say most of those things. All i've ever seen you say is that the govt is "raising their children" which I think is a terrible generalization. SEEN/THINK.. I dont care.. same thing to me, just your experiences which are narrow compared to the bigger picture.
I agree with you on having some people do community service, but how to implicate that and manage it will be difficult. Seriously, you do know that there are some people on govt assistance that work 2 jobs right? Can you at least agree on that? But there are some who dont and have the time to do comm service.. so distinguishing who is able and who is not is a big job. Maybe it will be done one day.. that would be great if it could work.
I agree with the vouchers for specific goods as well. I was under the impression that certain things like food stamps excluded tobacco/alcohol, but i'm not sure.