Life Lessons and Control Issues

We want what’s best for our kids and we don’t want them to be disappointed or hurt. It breaks our hearts when they have to learn those life lessons regarding responsibility, community, and money. Especially when they are going to fail and we know we can step in and save them from themselves.

When we go to Barnes & Noble and my children ask for a teen magazine instead of a book, how can I say no? How can I ask them to bring their own money and buy their own magazines and books when I’m the one who wants them to read, when I’m the one who knows reading will help their imaginations grow? I would hate it if they realized, after using their own money, what a waste the magazine is compared to a great book. Of course I’ll buy them their teen magazines.

When my children are not careful with their toys and lose them or tire of them and beg for new ones who am I to say no? I see the pain in their eyes, I hear the promises of “I’ll take better care of it next time!” and I don’t want them to suffer. I want them to be happy. They’ve clearly learned from their mistakes. As their mother I can replace those toys and I will be the hero again.

Right? Right?!?

No. I know these scenarios are ridiculous. It’s our job as parents to make sure our children learn their lessons well while they are growing up so they can make positive contributions to society; so they do not become dependent on hand-outs. It may break our hearts that they are miserable, but there are some lessons they will learn only by failing. We do a disservice to our children when we don’t let them fail. Every time we bail them out because we don’t want them to have to take care of themselves or because we know we can do it better or because we can make the pain go away and be the hero, we are letting them down.

Now think of it another way: non-privatized Social Security, welfare, socialized health care. We are perpetuating entitlement simply by not allowing people to stand on their own and make their own decisions.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Gerald Ford

It’s insulting that Hillary Clinton would suggest that privatization won’t solve anything (referring to Social Security). She’s essentially saying I’m not mature enough to know what’s best for me and I should let her decide because she and the government know best.

I find it absurd that people are still complaining that we’ve not rebuilt after Katrina. Do you know that we have spent more on rebuilding after Katrina than we spent rebuilding sixteen nations after WWII? And yes, that is adjusted for inflation. 

I do understand that occasionally people need help. I am not saying that you and I should ignore that. However, I submit that the help should come from private organizations (e.g., churches, Red Cross, United Way, individuals) not the government. Our government was not designed to be a welfare state. You and I should be able to choose which causes or groups we give our money to for aid. The government should not tell me or you that we “owe” anything to anyone simply because we are working hard for ourselves.

Most of us agree we need to let our children learn life lessons the hard way, but we do not agree that the adults of this country should be afforded the same courtesy. We want to provide government aid over and over to people who are not learning any lessons except that if they ask for it, they’ll get it. Meanwhile, those of us who want to make our own decisions are being told we couldn’t possibly have the ability to do so.

I’d love to know what you think.

Comments

[Soccermom Jenny]

LOVE this post. I so agree that a Nanny state is not in our best interest. Preach it sister!!

[kelli]

Exactamundo.

I find it so discouraging to live in such a "I am, therefore I should get" society.

Me. Me. Me.

It's so much easier to hand over your sense of accountability, becasue when you fail you don't have to take the blame.

Sorry, folks. Time to grow up.

Take responsibility.

Make your path. Better yourself. Take on your happiness.

Don't take the low road. It just sets up your kids to fail.

[Brandie]

Well, I personally agree with what you wrote.
Although, I will say, I see more and more parents swooping in to make sure their child is never disappointed and it makes me wonder what will happen to all these princes and princesses when they are grown up. Of course I do it sometimes too, but I don't think I do it all the time and I know a few moms who have to make everything perfect all. the. time. I can't imagine never saying no is a healthy thing at all- for children or adults!

[peach]

Ooo . . . this is so good I am passing it on to my DP to read, too. Love the set up. Love the quote by GF. Love the perspective -- one I share, I might add.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, dear friend. Givin' me something to chew on . . . and bonus, it's calorie-free!

[cagey]

Love this post. LOVE THIS POST.

But.

I have tons of older relatives that depend on social security and even some that see it as a benefit they "earned". Hillary Clinton is clearly seeking that vote. In her defense,most politicians seek that very vote. And yes, the same politicians that even I vote for, so this is not to knock those folks - in fact, I may vote for Hillary come Election Time. Truly.

The problem with all of this and sadly, even many of the topics discussed on Soccer Mom is that no one wants to take money away from programs. And how do you decide cut-offs? I absolutely agree on privatization of Social Security. Damned straight, I do NOT want the government in charge of it. But what is the solution? How can we change it? Who gets "privatized"? At what age?

For example, I am sure many of us have parents just mere years away from the Social Security - I think my own father is 2 years away from it. I do know that he is not depending on it, though.

And most importantly -- I do know this - I am 36 and I have no intents nor hopes of ever seeing Social Security.

Again, love the post. I hope it spurs conversation.

[cagey]

Just read Peach's comment.

Calorie-free? My best sort of treat. She has a valid point. :-)

[Antique Mommy]

I totally agree. I know our medical system is not perfect, but it's better. Even under a socialized medical system, the people who have money will still get better health care and the poor people will stand in line.

[Lynnae @ From Under the Clutter]

I couldn't have said it better myself! I think our government has grown way bigger than the founding fathers ever wanted it to grow.

I think it's high time the power moved away from the government and back to the people.

[creaturesoftheearth]

Don't agree, as a feline living the good life and working towards the presidency myself, the only thing I can say is thank GOD for bankers. Mine pays for everything. Talk about nanny!
Still, I think Hillary is very boring......wouldn't want to sit in that lap :) Cato

[Katrina (Callapidder Days)]

Oh, I completely agree. Very well-said!

[deborah]

Very well-stated. our nation is in a rapid decline. And if we don't do something radical and fast, the middle-class and Christian society it was based on, is history. Look around from the price of a gallon of milk to the barrel of gasoline compared to what our parents paid! hey remember the lines when gas was 79c a gallon?

I guess it's what we get for allowing both the Bible and the "rod of correction" being removed from children's lives. Replacing them with ipods, and TV, XBox and X-rated instead of love and discipline.

We have a choice to make for them now. What's yours?

[Lisse]

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "Nanny State" / "Government doesn't trust me with my own ... (fill in the blank)" argument always amuses me. When I hear that, I look around and see a nation of overstuffed, overspent, and underinformed Americans and think "Is this a nation capable of making good choices?"

But for me, the argument is less about responsibility than affordability. The working (and want-to-be-working) poor always seem to get lost in this discussion. What happens to people for whom the "good choices" are between food, rent, or a doctor visit? Where does "retirement savings" fit into that equation?

If you want people to go to work, is reliable public transportation and affordable childcare that unreasonable?

Yes, the Federal government is bigger than it should be (bigger, it turns out, under Bush 43 than under Clinton) but, to borrow a private sector scenario, basic investment in the health, safety, and knowledge of your workforce increases productivity and decreases turnover; saving money over time and allowing business to grow.

Besides, if the consequences of not being able to afford health insurance are (as often happens) catastrophic illness resulting in personal bankruptcy, what exactly is the lesson learned?

[Lesley]

I totally and whole heartedly agree!! :0) We have become a bunch of whiners that think we 'deserve' all the perks and when we don't get them we whine some more!
As for Katrina, I'm glad you stepped up and said something. Geesh, to say anything like that seems to fluff a lot of peoples feathers. I don't know why, its the truth.
I also agree that the the state should not be taking care of us. The churches have lost their place and its time for them to step up and take it back. Instead of fearing the infamous "seperation of church and state", the govt. should leave them alone to do what they do best....take care of people. It is easier for a church in my area to take care of the needs of the people in its community, then for the govt. The church knows its communtiy and what is needed, the gov't could really care less and just makes more paper and confusion for those trying to really help.

[Jendeis]

An interesting topic -- I appreciate your writing style.

The issue with Social Security is that it was never designed as a stand-alone pension program. Instead, it was to be part of a "three-legged stool" comprised of Social Security, employment pensions and personal savings.

I feel that the question now is, "what do we do now that employment pensions have basically gone the way of the dodo?"

Further, what do we tell those workers of my age (I just turned 30) who believe that they will never receive Social Security benefits? Too bad for you? Stinks to be born later off than us baby boomers?

Plenty of my friends make the argument that since we will never benefit from future generations paying into the system and, therefore, not receive any Social Security benefits, that we should not have to pay into the system ourselves. Instead, we should be using that money for personal savings. The problem? Where does the money promised to the baby boomers come from?

(I guess this discussion doesn't really have a solution, and is instead, just a series of questions.) Thanks for letting me add my 2 cents.

[T with Honey]

I know many IRL that are living off the government handouts and are not even trying to take care of themselves. Why bother leaving the house and working when the government will give you a better life on handouts than you will have if you get a minimum wage job?

For some of these families this has gone on for 3 generations. I'm certain that as long as the government keeps sending money the cycle will never be broken.

As for rebuilding after floods and health care - I have seen better results from local communities and charitable organizations. In my small NE town when houses when flooding hit in 2006 and 2007 everyone came together to help those victims out. Friends and churches pulled together to help them with donations of time, labor, clothing and money. And it all came together in a matter of days. They actually had to sit around and wait before helping to clean up the homes so FEMA could inspect first - which added to the mold growth and damage.

I fear that Gerald Ford's quote is true and becoming a reality for US citizens. And the thought of government led by Hillary Clinton scares me because I'm fairly certain that I am one of those that will have everything taken away instead of being able to give where I see the most need on my own.

[Soccer Mom Melanie]

Lisse,

I'm glad you chimed in. I didn't want this to be choir practice. ;)

In answer, though, I have to say that my point is our "nation of overstuffed, overspent, and underinformed Americans" should be allowed to fall on its face if that's the consequence. Those that aren't overstuffed, overspent, or underinformed should be allowed to prosper and not be responsible for the others. Community is important, but, as my mother says, 'Even Jesus couldn't save everyone.'

It is presumptuous to try to take care of everyone. We live in the land of the free, not the land of welfare. Those who have a drive will find a way. Those who don't will falter. They will either learn and work harder or they won't. As I said before, I understand that there are those who need a hand now and then. I just think that helping hand needs to be the private sector.

[PunditMom]

Interesting perspective, but I must respectfully disagree. It would be a great thing IF private organizations could meet all those needs. But there IS a place for government involvement on these issues. We may all disagree about how much, but I know that there will never be a time when private entities step up to the plate to help those in need.

[Sarah @ One Mom's View]

I totally agree. My daughter didn't want to do her homework the other night. Instead of coddling her through it, (I knew she was more than capable) I said, "Well, it's your decision, but you'll get a 0 tomorrow and your grade will go down. Is that what you want?" My husband was eye-ing me, I know to get me to say, "You'll do your homework, and you'll do it now!!" She thought about it for a while, and decided to get it done. (phew!) I put the responsibility on her, not on me to make her do it.

I'd like to add to Melanie's last comment that Americans have been taught that it is the government's job to give. This is why I believe you don't see our citizens stepping up to help the poor like we should! If you don't expect charitable personal behavior, you are not going to get it. People are lulled into thinking that the government will take care of it, and therefore abdicate their responsibility. Let's give Americans the ability to make the right choices on their own.

Also, there must be a way to avoid having a welfare state, while still providing a safety net for the poorest Americans.

[New Diva on the Blog]

Amen Sister!
The entitlement philosophy drives me crazy, mostly because they frame it so the average joe thinks it is good for the little guy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who hold this view value power above all else.

[Soccermom Nicole]

I'm curious where you draw the line with the idea of "welfare" and planning ahead. For example, assuming a person can find and purchase private health care coverage: what about when the co-pays and deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for a horrible accident or chronic illness exceed what ANYONE could plan for? Similarly, what if an accident leaves someone truly unable to work because of disability?

I think there is a limit to what the private and non-profit sectors could provide under these circumstances.

[Jeana]

Sorry you didn't want choir practice, because I'm singing your praises anyway. I completely agree.

And by the way, tax money IS the private sector paying someone else's bill. It's you, me, and anyone else who is working. The more the bills stack up, the higher the taxes will go, and the more our government gives, the more it is seen as an entitlement rather than a favor.

[annab]

Some of the issues of entitlement and choice have been addressed by the welfare reforms in the 1990's. There are welfare-to-work requirements, time limits on aid, and other criteria that are supposed to be met before aid can be given.

One issue I have with depending on the private sector is that these organizations are typically overburdened/underfunded for the aid needed in their areas. To depend on them as the comprenhesive source to reduce/eliminate poverty (or even to meet an occasional need) isn't really realistic.

We're already seeing that Social Security (which everyone pays into) is going to go bankrupt (probably before most here will use it) and that's a massive program with a steady income source. I don't see how an assembly of smaller, private agencies can successfully handle that task.

Also, there's accountability. If social services were handled mainly by the private sector, there's much less ability for the public to require oversight or changes. If you don't like what your gov't officials are doing, you can vote them out. You can even vote yourself in. But you don't have the ability to pick the board of trustees, much less to serve on that board for a private company. And, as we've seen in the past few years with Enron, there's a big risk in thinking that Big Corportate has all the answers.

There are a few issues here: the first is the sense of "entitlement". I can't speak to that either way -- I just don't have that information to read into people's motives. But the second is, what will/can work? There's at least some info on that, which can be found:

http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/welfarereform.cfm

it talks about who goes into poverty, who stays there, what keeps people in and out.

Obivously, there are stories of people both abusing the system and other people not getting the aid they need. Or of others who need the aid, and get by without it. But I'm not sure that anecdotal stories tell the whole picture: there will always be outliers, but what's going on at the averages?

[Soccer Mom Melanie]

I think I may have tempered my stance a little too much in the original post. My bottom line is pretty harsh: we cannot make everyone equal in everything and it's not our job to do so. (The word 'our' here meaning individuals, goverment, community.) People should be completely responsible for themselves.

Yes, I'm saying the unthinkable: If you are in a bad spot, too bad for you. If you've been a profitable member of your community, people WILL come to your aid for a limited amount of time. You are not entitled to anything more (and you're not entitled to any aid at all, really).

Frankly, I think that if people knew they would have to rely on the kindness of their neighbors and community instead of the free handouts from the govt, they might be more productive and involved.

[annab]

I'm really not trying to be disrespectful -- but while I think your idea -might- work in limited cases, but I just don't see how it can as an overall social policy.

First, it presumes a higher baseline than where the poor typically are. If you're in a community that can give aid, that means that your community has enough to spare. So in that case, I can see your point: a person has the opportunity, and it's their responsibility to make the most of it.

My concern is with the areas where there isn't the same opportunity. In that case, I think the issue of "motivation" takes on an entirely different meaning. You can be very motivated, still hardworking, but not be in the situation to have meaningful opportunities to work from. Yes, there is still personal responsibility. But if that sense of responsibility still isn't enough to carry your family through, then it isn't.

For example: in the city near where I live, there are very few low-skilled jobs that can be reached by public transportation. So a person without an education (let's say they're trying to "pull themselves up") can spend more of their income on transportation than a person with higher skills/pay.

They also pay a greater percentage for their housing, also their food (in the city where I grew up, there isn't a grocery store in the city limits. There are convenience stores, which cost more per item than the regular chain groceries, which are in the suburbs.)

If they are single parents, they pay a higher percentage of their income for child care, medicine -- pretty much everything.

I'm not saying that welfare is the answer. But I definitely think that the government work to support the infrastructure is key.

For example, public transportation is subsidized by the government, and it's definitely a key to getting people out of poverty. Low-cost child care is also a key, just like Head Start was helpful in preparing low-income children for school (so they can get the education their parents lack.) So there's definitely a place for some government intervention.

I think that you're right about how desire and motivation can help people improve. But I think it's a fallacy to say that the _average_ person who starts out in poverty will do enough by sheer force of mind to 1) create enough capital to get themselves out of poverty 2) keep their family from making the detrimental choices that are common in the underclass and 3) propel their family into a higher bracket and keep them there.

I think there's a lot that can be done as individuals, but when you talk about breaking a cycle, people just don't do that alone. And if your entire community is in the same situation that you are...well, I'm just not sure how much they can help you fix something that they can't fix in their own homes.

There are a couple of books you might be interested in: The Working Poor, by David Shipler or "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich.

I think the issue of povery is too complex to be boiled down to "you deserve it for not working hard enough."

[Soccermom Nancy E.]

Privatization works wonders, doesn't it? Just look at how many people ARE working and can't afford their health insurance premiums.

I agree with annab, poverty is much more complex than you have made it out to be. The working poor are those who put in their 40-50 hours a week and still can't afford the basics. What would you have them do? Go to college?

Well, as college tuition continues to sky rocket, by the time our children have graduated from high school, higher education may be a privilege of only the upper class. Oh wait, you can take out loans (not if you don't have a credit history) and be tens of thousands of dollars in debt before you even get a job!

There are always those who abuse any system - rich and poor - but you can't buy into the idea that "they all" abuse the system simply because they're using it.

While I agree with you parenting style in teaching independence to our kids, I don't do it on the premise that I don't want them to be "one of them" taking handouts. I teach them to be as independent as they can, to take responsibility and when they need it to ask for help.

I pay taxes and yes, I want some of that money to go to people who need assistance. Even if I don't know them. Even if they've received assistance before. I'd rather have my money go to them than to the perpetuation of a war, any war.

Poverty and public assistance isn't about entitlement or personal responsibility - it's a fact that there are people in this country who work their tails off and still don't make enough to support themselves or their families. And when you set up a system that allows you to "better" yourself through over-priced education you set people up to fail by putting them under water before they've even had a chance to learn how to swim.

The fact that ANY of us can even post on this website to have this conversation means we have some kind of access to a computer and therefore, really know nothing about poverty because we're not living in it right now in 2007.