simple question

[ishtat]

Once upon a time Dolf asked a perfectly reasonable question.

She did not offer any particular opinion or point of view herself. If she did I suspect that given her experience, it might be more nuanced than the buffoons attacking her (presumed position) and each other might imagine.

The economic aspects are important and increasingly so, but so is the management of the personal/emotional issues. There is no one size fits all answer.

I would like to hear Dolf's views, but would not blame her if she chose to avoid being inevitably pilloried by the entirely predictable idiots from both ends of the political spectrum.

Not a happy ever after ending.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Once upon a time Dolf asked a perfectly reasonable question.

She did not offer any particular opinion or point of view herself. If she did I suspect that given her experience, it might be more nuanced than the buffoons attacking her (presumed position) and each other might imagine.

The economic aspects are important and increasingly so, but so is the management of the personal/emotional issues. There is no one size fits all answer.

I would like to hear Dolf's views, but would not blame her if she chose to avoid being inevitably pilloried by the entirely predictable idiots from both ends of the political spectrum.

Not a happy ever after ending.

Well by all means, make the journey down from the top of Mount Sanctimony and share your thoughts on Dolf's original post.

Or stick with the smug bitchy meta-commentary.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I went downstairs and got out The Year 1000 by Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger, a book about life in England in the year 1000. On a page comfortably talking about the fact that Bristol and Dublin were major slave ports back then, they address the question of what happened to a poor person down on his luck.

n the year 1000 the starving man had no other resort but to kneel before his lord or lady and place his head in their hands. No legal document was involved, and the new bondsman would be handed a bill-hook or ox-goad in token of his fresh start in servitude.
​

The idea was that you gave up to your lord your “head for food.”

Really, what has changed? Today the starving man gives up his vote to the Democratic Party and his local community organizer in return for SNAP, TANF, Section 8, and Medicaid, and he doesn't have to work for his food, like the bondsman of old.

I will tell you what else has changed, and it has changed for the worse. In the old days the local lord was the economic, political, and cultural lord of all he surveyed. If he accepted the head of a new bondsman and got the benefit of his work and his loyalty, he also took on the cost of feeding that bondsman.

In our age the economic, political, and cultural sectors are nominally separate, and the political class, assisted by the cultural class in the media, relieves the poor without taking on the responsibility of actually paying to feed the poor. The powerful political magnate receives the heads of the poor in his hands, and then pays for the benefits for its bondsmen not from his own estates, as of old, but from tax monies taken from the economic sector, from businesses and wage earners, by force.

The politician does not tell the poor that, if they want to know who to thank, it's businessmen and wage earners. Not at all. They didn't build that, and but for us community organizers the employers and the one percenters would let the poor starve.

Christopher Chantrill
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/3_15_2015_23_52.html#ixzz3UdiWiwQY