Tuesday, October 18, 2005
When helping others, when is it enough?
I do not have an answer to my following observation.
But it is such a prevalent problem today, it deserves a strong dialogue.
When helping people when does one draw the line and say, "Enough is enough."
In business, people can be given second chances. Exceptions can be made. However, eventually a poor performer is demoted or fired. If a consistent poor performer, after reasonable attempts at correction, is not fired it sets a poor example. The precedent will be set. It will not take people long to learn that they can not try at work and still get paid. There is a reason words like criteria, standards, performance, par, assesment and development exist.
Similarly, when raising a child, a parent may need to discipline their child. If a parent continuously threatens a child with punishment, and the punishment never comes, then the child will never behave. Obviously, just like in the business case, exceptions are made and children are given many chances to improve their behavior.
These are two everyday examples of "drawing a line." These are two examples that I feel most people can identify with and agree with. Now keeping these situations in mind I would like to extend the argument to government aid.
When the government gives aid to people to get themselves back on their feet and re-establish a life, when should the government stop giving? "Sooner than later," some will argue; "Never," others will refute. As a side note, I believe that most Americans will agree that a life on welfare is no way to live and raise a family. That being said, under our county's current aid system people are helped just enough so they can get by. Decreasing aid is inhumane because current aid recipients can barely keep their head above water as it is. On the other hand, increasing aid seems outrageous because by providing a higher standard of living it does not motivate people to get jobs. So when should the government say, "No." Telling aid recipients that all their elligible aid is gone and letting them starve to death is an unacceptable way to set an example. But to give aid with no end in sight does not motivate those who are happy to "just make it." I do not have an answer. All I do know is that as a human I want people who need help to get help; however, as a hard working, tax payer, I want these multi-generational welfare recipients to get jobs and become productive.
One of the surest ways to get people off of government aid is to educate them. Here is the second part of my point. How many times can a school give a child a second chance before they are kicked out of school. On one side of the argument, by expelling a child we are setting them up to be future government aid recipients, potential criminals, at best marginally employable and worst of all they become parents who do not instill the importance of education in their children. On the other side of the argument, by continuing to pass these students along to the next grade we destroy the integrity of a diploma or a degree, and worse we set the example that sub-par performance will be tolerated. How long must a student be given chances?
I do not have the best answer to any of these questions. But something has to do done. A line must be drawn somewhere. As a nation we can not (1) provide a basic standard of living for everyone, (2) and rush to the aid of every country with a problem, (3) and continually accept poor academic performance while opening our colleges to more and more foreign scholars, (4) and maintain the appropriate level of national protection without drawing a line in the sand and saying, "No." If being a socialist-nation were the best way to go, the Soviet Union would be the predominant world power, instead of the United States of America.
But it is such a prevalent problem today, it deserves a strong dialogue.
When helping people when does one draw the line and say, "Enough is enough."
In business, people can be given second chances. Exceptions can be made. However, eventually a poor performer is demoted or fired. If a consistent poor performer, after reasonable attempts at correction, is not fired it sets a poor example. The precedent will be set. It will not take people long to learn that they can not try at work and still get paid. There is a reason words like criteria, standards, performance, par, assesment and development exist.
Similarly, when raising a child, a parent may need to discipline their child. If a parent continuously threatens a child with punishment, and the punishment never comes, then the child will never behave. Obviously, just like in the business case, exceptions are made and children are given many chances to improve their behavior.
These are two everyday examples of "drawing a line." These are two examples that I feel most people can identify with and agree with. Now keeping these situations in mind I would like to extend the argument to government aid.
When the government gives aid to people to get themselves back on their feet and re-establish a life, when should the government stop giving? "Sooner than later," some will argue; "Never," others will refute. As a side note, I believe that most Americans will agree that a life on welfare is no way to live and raise a family. That being said, under our county's current aid system people are helped just enough so they can get by. Decreasing aid is inhumane because current aid recipients can barely keep their head above water as it is. On the other hand, increasing aid seems outrageous because by providing a higher standard of living it does not motivate people to get jobs. So when should the government say, "No." Telling aid recipients that all their elligible aid is gone and letting them starve to death is an unacceptable way to set an example. But to give aid with no end in sight does not motivate those who are happy to "just make it." I do not have an answer. All I do know is that as a human I want people who need help to get help; however, as a hard working, tax payer, I want these multi-generational welfare recipients to get jobs and become productive.
One of the surest ways to get people off of government aid is to educate them. Here is the second part of my point. How many times can a school give a child a second chance before they are kicked out of school. On one side of the argument, by expelling a child we are setting them up to be future government aid recipients, potential criminals, at best marginally employable and worst of all they become parents who do not instill the importance of education in their children. On the other side of the argument, by continuing to pass these students along to the next grade we destroy the integrity of a diploma or a degree, and worse we set the example that sub-par performance will be tolerated. How long must a student be given chances?
I do not have the best answer to any of these questions. But something has to do done. A line must be drawn somewhere. As a nation we can not (1) provide a basic standard of living for everyone, (2) and rush to the aid of every country with a problem, (3) and continually accept poor academic performance while opening our colleges to more and more foreign scholars, (4) and maintain the appropriate level of national protection without drawing a line in the sand and saying, "No." If being a socialist-nation were the best way to go, the Soviet Union would be the predominant world power, instead of the United States of America.
