where is Ian Beckles?

[cheveliar]

Chev,

I'm not judging the woman in question, per se. None of us have the facts to do so.

I believe I said I had compassion for those who cant help themselves because of physical/mental health problems.

However, the point remains, people are responsible for their own actions and, IMO, it is not society's responsibility to "bail them out". I have no compassion for illegal drug users in any form.

I also agree, that the "American Dream" (if you are talking about owning a house and car) may not be available to eveyone-but in many cases its because of poor personal decisions. Neither you or I should be "forced" to be put in a position to support them.

I wanted to be well to do. Choices made earlier in my life prevented that. I had an opportunity to transfer the top university in its field in this country-(instead I graduated from a no name college). It would have brought me a much better life style than I had over these last 50 years. I blew that opportunity by getting married and the university would not take me-as they felt I couldn't support myself properly and get the quality education they offered. That cost me thousands and thousands of dollars of income over my career lifetime. Instead of starting my career at $50K+ per/year (in todays dollars), I was barely breaking even. Then to compound everything, I stupidly had 2 children right away. (Love my kids-but my timing stunk!). So I am well aware of poor decisions-cause I made them-as did we all. But I CHOSE to do the best I could. I may or may not have succeeded, depending someone else's criteria. My Dad didn't think so and never forgave me for giving up my career opportunity.

So we are all in the same boat. There is an old expression "you make the bed you lie in".

I am compassionate to a point and then I draw the line and I won't cross it.

 

I'd agree with that Unc, with the caveat that until you know what time it is you can't vilify the person(s) in question and make blanket statements that it's not right and they should have made the right choices.  I can think of a lot of choices that would have me in a better place today as well and I'm certainly lying in that bed.  But not everyone had the family I had, the church I had, the teachers I had, and just the friends of the family I had.  I can honestly say that I'm not rich, but I'm not in the gutter looking up with limited choices.  Not all the people in that gutter are a product of their own choices.  Could have been choices others made, right or wrong that put them their.  That's all I'm saying.  Hard core drug dealers deserve what they get, so do users.  Crack babies don't deserve that kind of start and you don't know what kind of chemical imbalance they have because their mother sold herself and did crack just so the baby could even get here...sure that's modified and probably not a correct scenario, but I think you get the gist...

[tim111762]

If this lady is able to get a job and mentally fit then you are correct.  Either way I still don't condone what she's doing.  However, I stand by my thought that until you walk a day in the life of one of these people who are you (people in general) to be her judge and jury?  I still say it's very easy to sit back and look at what you've accomplished and then look down or differently at someone who hasn't made it there or isn't doing it like you.  At this point you guys seem you'll never have any compassion for them which I guess I get.  However, denouncing them claiming it's just so easy not to do something unethical to make ends meet is rather shallow to me and shows a lack of life experiences with people who are down troddden with very little resources or choices.  Yes, there are people who, by cirmcumstances beyond their control, make choices that are not the ones we'd make. 

I personally will not sit in judgement of this woman because 1. I don't know all of the things that brought her to this point.  2. I'm probably one paycheck from being in the same dellima.  Would I make the same choices, probably not.  But if my life was like hers, I can't say that I wouldn't.  I had a strong family unit and those people instilled things in me that I hold true today. I know kids and adults alike who come from way better surroundings than me and still end up in jail, on drugs, or worst dead.  She's going to pay for what she's done. That doesn't mean that she doesn't need help. As hard as it is to believe, everybody can't pull it together so that their lives reflect the "American Dream". This topis should have been about how you help someone like that and if you don't feel the responsibility to help don't judge...

who are we to be her judge and jury? well we are the taxpayers whose hard earned money goes to support these people. and u said that these situations are usually through no fault of their own? id say having six kids without the ability to raise them is entirely her fault.... i had a homeless man come up to me yesterday and said thank you for working. he said every month the government puts $1,200 tax free dollars in his pocket thanks to taxpayers like me... a homeless man who does nothing pulls $1,200 a month. im sure there 100 other resources she coulda used to make ends. id say having kids u cant support would be step 1.  my mom worked a full time and a part time  ob took college classes and raised my sister and i without any government or illegal help. you wanna know what her secret was? she wasnt gonna let anyone stop her. she wanted it bad enuf to get off her ass and make it happen. she didnt sit around pointing fingers at who was to blame for her situation. she understood that she is the only she can hold accountable and she chose for more out of life. i have no pity or respect. ive seen both sides. the only thing stoping you is yourself.

[cheveliar]

So is your mom the only one that worked long hours to support you?  Not hardly.  There were days I didn't even see my mom!  Dawg, you're missing the point because you don't want to see it.  Not everyone deserves the help that is offered by the government just like there are people who get it as a means to an end.  The general sweeping statements coupled with the one off bad experience does not a case study make.  For every situation you find where assistance is unwarranted I can find you two or more who would cease to exist without it.  That doesn't count the homeless who don't even have the basics to even receive assistance you know like a residence, with a phone, you know the basics...

Dude please don't think this is in anyway a condemnation of what you and your family has gone through.  At the same time don't take your perseverence for granted.  And please don't mistake it as something you or your family accomplished and now you want to condemn someone else for not equaling your prosperity.  Again I say to you, not everyone has even the fortitude to go out and meet their own basic needs.  It's not because they are lazy, not because they don't want to, but because, most times, it is the only way THEY know how to get it done.  It's not always the right choice, most times its the wrong one, but its an avenue and they chose it to get to where they need to be...

[tim111762]

So is your mom the only one that worked long hours to support you?  Not hardly.  There were days I didn't even see my mom!  Dawg, you're missing the point because you don't want to see it.  Not everyone deserves the help that is offered by the government just like there are people who get it as a means to an end.  The general sweeping statements coupled with the one off bad experience does not a case study make.  For every situation you find where assistance is unwarranted I can find you two or more who would cease to exist without it.  That doesn't count the homeless who don't even have the basics to even receive assistance you know like a residence, with a phone, you know the basics...

Dude please don't think this is in anyway a condemnation of what you and your family has gone through.  At the same time don't take your perseverence for granted.  And please don't mistake it as something you or your family accomplished and now you want to condemn someone else for not equaling your prosperity.  Again I say to you, not everyone has even the fortitude to go out and meet their own basic needs.  It's not because they are lazy, not because they don't want to, but because, most times, it is the only way THEY know how to get it done.  It's not always the right choice, most times its the wrong one, but its an avenue and they chose it to get to where they need to be...

first off, yes my mom was the only one who supported my family.. we had dead beat dad and no family to help us. i believe help should be given to those who deserve it. not those wo want to abuse it. i think if u want the government to help u, u should first prove that u want to help yourself. i know for a fact that there are people who would cease toexist without help,  and the people who want to excel in life should be helped. and what my family did is an accomplishment. coming from nothing being thrown out of your house with a new baby and having nowhere to go and deciding that inspite of the odds your going to succeed, and then doing it, that is most definately an accomplishment. and if you dont have the mental capacity to hold a job and funtion in society, you most definately should not be living on your own. any body who is of sound mind and body has nobody to blame but themselves. i dont wanna hear people complain about being a certain race, gender, family situation, or class level. thats excuses.  if u wanna get it done u get off ur butt and get it done. dont make excuses, make solutions. the problem is people are too lazy. everyone thinks the world owes them cuz they are different. thats bull crap. the world doesnt owe u anything, the world was here first. i understand and sympathize with the peole who genuinely struggling but TRYING. its the people who sit on there buts collecting checks from the government and popping out more kids to get more money and then complain about how there the victims. get off ur butt and make something happen. im not trying to be an butt but selling crack in my opinion is a copp out.... its them trying to make a quick easy buck. look at the illegal mexicans.... im no fan of illegal immigrants, but these people sneak across the border with nothing but the clothes on there backs and they work there asses off day in and day out just to make a life. they dont get social security or disability to help them. they make there $3.00 an hour and there glad to have it. THESE are the people who know what the hard side of life is. not lazy jane doe who wants to rape the government and tax payers so she doesnt have to break a sweat. nobody knows how good we have it. and yea i do have a problem with people who choose not to work a real job so u can make a quick buck sellin crack to kids or whoever.  yea we all make mistakes in life, but its not the rest of the countrys responsibility to clean up your life. and while i can understand being desperate, you always have a choice in life. it just seems like many wanna take the quick easy way instead of hard work and determination way. if the "only way u no how to get it done" is to sell crack and take advantage of people then u are a drain on society and should be cut off. they contribute nothing to this country but yet continue to drain our resources while demanding more....

The Culture Of Poverty
By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek Inc.
Wednesday, April 30 1997;


Everyone involved in "welfare reform" could usefully read "What Money Can't Buy" (Harvard University Press), a study by sociologist Susan Mayer of the University of Chicago. Its message is somber: As a society, we are fairly helpless to correct the worst problems of child poverty. This is not a new insight, but by confirming it, Mayer discredits much of the welfare debate's overwrought rhetoric. "Welfare reform" may raise or lower poverty a bit (we can't say which), but neither its supposed virtues nor its alleged vices are powerful enough to alter the status quo dramatically.

What's impressive about Mayer's study is that it contradicts both her politics and her history. She's a registered Democrat, a self-described "hard-nosed" liberal. She does not write explicitly about welfare but instead asks a basic question: How important is money in enabling families to help their children escape poverty? Having once been a single mother without much money, she believed that money was critical. "It's terrible to be a parent," she says, "and not be able to buy things that your kids want." She recalls having to borrow to pay a doctor's bill. Money must matter. Well, it doesn't – at least, not much.

Mayer reviewed studies and tried to match parents' incomes with children's outcomes. Good outcomes were high test scores, having a job (or being in school) at the age of 24 and earning high wages. Bad outcomes included dropping out of high school and becoming an unwed mother. Of course, children of middle-class parents do better than children of poorer parents. Mayer tried to distinguish between the pure income effects and other influences. Once she did, income's impact dropped sharply. (Warning to potential readers: A lot of the book is technical.) She writes:

"The parental characteristics that employers value and are willing to pay for, such as skills, diligence, honesty, good health, and reliability, also improve children's life chances, independent of their effect on parents' incomes. Children of parents with these attributes do well even if their parents do not have much income." This demolishes much of the welfare debate's rhetorical boilerplate, liberal and conservative.

As Mayer notes, it contradicts the common liberal claim that all "the poor are just like everyone else except that they have less money." Indeed, the material well-being of poor children has generally improved, report Mayer and sociologist Christopher Jencks of Harvard in another study. In 1970, about 26 percent of the poorest fifth of children hadn't visited a doctor in the past year; by 1989, the figure was only 14 percent. In 1973, about 71 percent of these children lived in homes without air-conditioning; by 1991, only 45 percent did. Unfortunately, these material improvements didn't translate into better social conditions. Crime rose; so did out-of-wedlock birthrates.

But Mayer's study also shakes the reassuring conservative assumption that, if pushed, the poor can become self-sufficient through work. Precisely because many long-term welfare recipients aren't as competent or disciplined as middle-class parents, they may not find and keep jobs, let alone well-paying ones. The thrust of Mayer's grim analysis is to support the existence of a permanent "culture of poverty," an argument first advanced in the modern American context by political scientist Edward Banfield in a 1970 book.

Banfield split the poor into two groups. Some simply lacked money. These included many disabled and unemployed people, and some single mothers who had been widowed, divorced or abandoned. These people had middle-class values and could benefit from government income support. They could usually recover from a setback (job loss, divorce). Then there was the true "lower class," who would "live in squalor . . . even if their incomes were doubled," Banfield wrote, because they had a "radically present-oriented" outlook that "attaches no value to work, sacrifice, self-improvement, or service to family, friends or community."

The Banfield theory ignited outrage, because it meant that, beyond some point, the effort to end poverty would fail. In the prevailing climate – all problems were then deemed solvable – this was heresy. But it has stood the test of time and taps into popular ambivalence about social welfare. For 200 years Americans "have vacillated between trying to improve the material well-being of poor children and . . . the moral character of their parents," says Mayer. Early in the 19th century, localities provided the poor with "outdoor relief" (a handout of money, food or goods). Later the poor were shunted into almshouses, intended to promote work, temperance and character.

The present "welfare reform" fits this tradition. It is not as harsh as critics charge. (The one exception is the cutoff in benefits to legal immigrants; but this involves immigration, another matter.) For example, it does not impose an absolute five-year lifetime welfare limit (a fifth of a state's caseload can exceed five years). It correctly presumes that what people do for themselves matters more than what government does for them. By allowing states to experiment with mixes of benefits and work requirements, we may discover which policies succeed.

But reform could easily fail. The real test is not reduced welfare caseloads. These have already dropped 21 percent since early 1994, mainly as the result of a strong economy. The real tests are less teenage pregnancy, more stable marriages and better homes for children. It's a tall order – perhaps an impossible one – for government to reengineer family life and human nature. And, of course, not all poor families are on welfare.

The dilemma is to maintain an adequate safety net without being so generous as to create more dependency. Mayer doubts that expanding the safety net would do much good. It now meets most families' basic needs – one reason, she suspects, why extra income doesn't much improve children's prospects. But she fears that scaling assistance back sharply might do harm. Still, she has no pat solutions. After finishing her study, she felt depressed by the realization that ending poverty "may be beyond the capacity of even a rich nation."

© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/op043097.htm

I'll summarize for those of you who hate to read because words hurt your brain (you know who you are):

People who are "diligent, honest, healthy, and reliable" tend to have successful children who break the cycle and rise above the poverty level - regardless of whether they receive welfare or not.

People who "attach no value to work, sacrifice, self-improvement, or service to family, friends or community" tend to have children who share those values and remain in poverty creating a drain on society - regardless of whether they receive welfare or not.

It's not real hard to figure out which group this lady falls into.

[4bucs]

I could care less about walking in somebodys shoes......a crack dealer no matter what the reason .......should be put away for life and her kids put up for adoption.....which may save them from becoming pimps,whores ,robbers killers....or worst of all drug dealers.
         A DRUG DEALER IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST THING IN OUR SOCIETY  AND BECKLES SHOULD BE PUT OFF THE AIR FOR TELLING PEOPLE ITS ALL RIGHT TO DO THIS IF YOU HAVE A GOOD REASON.THIS BOOB IS IN A POSITION THAT SOME PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW HIM WOULD ACTUALY BELIEVE ITS OK TO BE A DRUG DEALER.......ONE MORE TIME.....ALL DRUG DEALERS SHOULD BE PUT AWAY FOR LIFE OR EXECUTED.

[richbucsfan]

4Bucs, I totally agree with you. But, remember, the younger generation has been brought up in this PC environment and therefore have no clue as to absolute truth or holding people accountable.  So, I'm sure you'll get some heat from your comments. Yes, he should be fired, no doubt about it.  His amorality permeates his show. He doesn't do research, which is obvious when you listen to him. He opens his mouth and his ignorance and lack of moral values fills the air. Sad but true.