Social safety net (attn Phrost) [Archive]

Tmy

27th July 2004, 10:58 AM

"And by the way, your 'social safety net' is more like a 'social resort for the lazy' which rewards the mooches for bringing more children into the world they cannot support by extending their benefits."

Whoa! Step out of 1978 and into the present. (unless your talking about the unemployment beneies that have been extended)

Welfare doesnt work that way anymore. More babies does not equal more money. Not only that the welfare roles are such a small part of the overall budget that eliminating the system all together would hardly dent the tax burden.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
"And by the way, your 'social safety net' is more like a 'social resort for the lazy' which rewards the mooches for bringing more children into the world they cannot support by extending their benefits."

Whoa! Step out of 1978 and into the present. (unless your talking about the unemployment beneies that have been extended)

Welfare doesnt work that way anymore. More babies does not equal more money. Not only that the welfare roles are such a small part of the overall budget that eliminating the system all together would hardly dent the tax burden.

Really? Tell that to my in-laws, who pop out a kid every two years like clockwork so they don't lose their food stamps.

Tmy

27th July 2004, 11:30 AM

How much do they get in food stamps anyway? Enough to live high on the hog (excuse the bad pun). Do youthink they make a profit from the kid. Like those people who have kids to getthe chidl tax credit. Lousy baby having tax moochers!

Speaking of welfare, how about that Patent Office. Lousy big compaines getting patent protection on the taxpayer dime every time they shoot out another inovation!

Tmy

27th July 2004, 11:32 AM

edit. double post

Phrost

27th July 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by gnome
By "safety net" I mean emergency financial support for people unable to provide for themselves. The form that support will take, who is eligible, and the requirements of the program, is all debatable. But first I wanted Phrost to weigh in on the entire idea, because it takes tax money no matter how you slice it.

The entire idea of a safety net is an insult. It's nothing more than a statement that people are incapable of planning for their future or being responsible for their own lives.

In fact, it goes that much further to suggest that it's the government's responsibility to be mommy and daddy to citizens who chose not to grow up.

Let me qualify these statements with a few points, before this discussion goes further and assumptions are made:

I have no problem with a well-run, limited-scope, welfare program. Unfortunately, any time citizens are allowed to 'vote themselves money from the treasury' the system will be inherently corrupt to begin with.

That said, the government should not be in the charity business, any more than it should be in Religion. Public assistance should come in the form of public works departments which give job opportunities to the unemployed instead of free money for doing essentially nothing. $400+ billion applied to pay unemployed people to sit on their a$ses is waste. $400+ billion worth of labor on public infrastructure is a worthwhile expense.

On with the discussion.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
How much do they get in food stamps anyway? Enough to live high on the hog (excuse the bad pun). Do youthink they make a profit from the kid. Like those people who have kids to getthe chidl tax credit. Lousy baby having tax moochers!

Speaking of welfare, how about that Patent Office. Lousy big compaines getting patent protection on the taxpayer dime every time they shoot out another inovation!

About $1K a month. When they lived in California, it was a similar figure, plus $1700 out of an $1800 a month rent bill, plus most of their utilities covered at a lower rate as well.

Patent office protects intellectual property. The government's job is to protect property, not to redistribute it.

Tmy

27th July 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
About $1K a month. When they lived in California, it was a similar figure, plus $1700 out of an $1800 a month rent bill, plus most of their utilities covered at a lower rate as well.

Patent office protects intellectual property. The government's job is to protect property, not to redistribute it.

The govts job is to protect the people.

Sounds like you may have problem specific to cali. Even here in Mass the amounts dont work that way. ( I still dont buy getting $1k a month to feed a kid.)

As for the rent bill. THats corporate welfare. Whos getting that money?? The housing owners/management compainies.

Do you think unemployment is another form of welfare.??

Phrost

27th July 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
The govts job is to protect the people.

Sounds like you may have problem specific to cali. Even here in Mass the amounts dont work that way. ( I still dont buy getting $1k a month to feed a kid.)

As for the rent bill. THats corporate welfare. Whos getting that money?? The housing owners/management compainies.

Do you think unemployment is another form of welfare.??

It doesn't matter who is getting the money, it is coming from me. I don't care for corporate welfare any more than I do for welfare for low-lifes.

In answer to your question, I use the term "welfare" to describe any form of financial, public assistance, so yes.

I do not feel it's the government's place to forcibly take any portion of my money to put in a savings account, much less one to which other people have 'access'.

And to suggest that this is something I need is a slap in the face to my competency as an adult to operate in the world. I am responsible for my own life, and I do not expect anyone else to be.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 11:55 AM

And NO it's not the government's job to protect the people from themselves. Everyone has the unalienable right to do whatever the hell they want with themselves, as long as their actions do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

The primary function of government is to protect these rights, not to serve as a medium from which people draw entitlements.

LostAngeles

27th July 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
The govts job is to protect the people.

Sounds like you may have problem specific to cali. Even here in Mass the amounts dont work that way. ( I still dont buy getting $1k a month to feed a kid.)

As for the rent bill. THats corporate welfare. Whos getting that money?? The housing owners/management compainies.

Do you think unemployment is another form of welfare.??

I don't know how it works in MA, exactly, but when I lived on the South Shore there were quite a few people who were clearly living off the state and living good with nice cars and televisions and toys for the kids.

I say give them a day care voucher so they can go to work and if they work, give them some public assistance if they still need it. They don't want to work, they don't get any money.

Cause, well... s'how it works.

Tmy

27th July 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
And NO it's not the government's job to protect the people from themselves. Everyone has the unalienable right to do whatever the hell they want with themselves, as long as their actions do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

The primary function of government is to protect these rights, not to serve as a medium from which people draw entitlements.

You act as if everyone is in control of evrything that happens to them.

What if they are born disabled? Lose a job due to plant closings? Were in a horrible accident and cant work? Are sick but dont have health insurance?

What do we do with these people. Doesnt it not benefit the county as a whole to help them out in times of need. With a little help many ofthem can become self suffcient.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 12:21 PM

What if they are born disabled?

The family should be primarily responsible, and private charities should help. However, in cases like this I am not opposed to the government contracting social workers to help the individual be as self-suffecient as possible.

Lose a job due to plant closings?

I am not repsonsible for someone's poor career choices.

Were in a horrible accident and cant work?

Health insurance + Saving your money instead of buying things you didn't need.

Are sick but dont have health insurance?

Should have made better choices.

What do we do with these people. Doesnt it not benefit the county as a whole to help them out in times of need. With a little help many ofthem can become self suffcient.

The problem is helping people who refuse to help themselves. They have no desire to be self-suffecient, they want a handout.

Those who have a desire to help themselves can be given opporunities to do so with a public works administration that only gives assistance in return for labor.

With no safety net under you, you tend to walk life's tight rope a bit more carefully and effeciently.

gnome

27th July 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
The entire idea of a safety net is an insult. It's nothing more than a statement that people are incapable of planning for their future or being responsible for their own lives.

Sometimes no matter how well you plan, or how responsibly you act, you're screwed and can't feed and house yourself or your family. The concept of a "safety net" is to soften that blow so that you can theoretically get back on your feet and try to pull your own weight again, instead of crashing and burning and taking your family with you.

In fact, it goes that much further to suggest that it's the government's responsibility to be mommy and daddy to citizens who chose not to grow up.

This assumes that everyone who is unable to take care of themselves for any period of time, has chosen to be that way.

Let me qualify these statements with a few points, before this discussion goes further and assumptions are made:

I have no problem with a well-run, limited-scope, welfare program. Unfortunately, any time citizens are allowed to 'vote themselves money from the treasury' the system will be inherently corrupt to begin with.

That said, the government should not be in the charity business, any more than it should be in Religion. Public assistance should come in the form of public works departments which give job opportunities to the unemployed instead of free money for doing essentially nothing. $400+ billion applied to pay unemployed people to sit on their a$ses is waste. $400+ billion worth of labor on public infrastructure is a worthwhile expense.

On with the discussion.

This is a reasonable idea for those capable of doing the work. I have no problem with people being required to work for their financial assistance. How would these public works departments be funded?

Tmy

27th July 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
What if they are born disabled?

The family should be primarily responsible, and private charities should help. However, in cases like this I am not opposed to the government contracting social workers to help the individual be as self-suffecient as possible.

Lose a job due to plant closings?

I am not repsonsible for someone's poor career choices.

Were in a horrible accident and cant work?

Health insurance + Saving your money instead of buying things you didn't need.

Are sick but dont have health insurance?

Should have made better choices.

What do we do with these people. Doesnt it not benefit the county as a whole to help them out in times of need. With a little help many ofthem can become self suffcient.

The problem is helping people who refuse to help themselves. They have no desire to be self-suffecient, they want a handout.

Those who have a desire to help themselves can be given opporunities to do so with a public works administration that only gives assistance in return for labor.

Cheese n crackers. What % of the population acutally has enough $$ to set themselves up for all that is unforseen?? Is working fora company a poor decision if the company up and outsources years later???

God forbid you were hit by lightning tomorrow. Could you absorb the health cost and lost work??? "Shouldnt have made the choice to get hit by lightning".

Tmy

27th July 2004, 12:28 PM

While we're at it why not get rid of the military. Who needs it! If we make the right decisions we wont anger any countries into attacking us.

gnome

27th July 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
The primary function of government is to protect these rights, not to serve as a medium from which people draw entitlements.

I can agree here... but would point out that IMO the purpose of welfare money is not only to benefit of those in need... but to reduce the strain on society that is created by masses of people without any survival recourse.

To me that's no different than finding out that money I paid in taxes went to roads, or to build tanks. I'm getting something out of it. And I get to vote for the people that decide where the money goes.

I don't imagine a metaphorical "man in black" taking me at gunpoint to give money to highway contractors. Even though I may not use that particular highway...

That said, if you offer a different solution (such as the one above that involves a work program) I'm all for it, if you can get it to function. The devil is in the details, as they say.

I do not fear change in the system, what I oppose are those that seem to advocate scrapping the whole thing without much idea of what they'll do instead.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Cheese n crackers. What % of the population acutally has enough $$ to set themselves up for all that is unforseen?? Is working fora company a poor decision if the company up and outsources years later???

God forbid you were hit by lightning tomorrow. Could you absorb the health cost and lost work??? "Shouldnt have made the choice to get hit by lightning".

A. Doesn't justify legislating "Compassion" and making it compulsory through taxes.

B. Yes. I have actually given serious thought to planning for my future. Were I struck by lighting tomorrow my bills would all be paid without needing to touch my savings, which is there as a last resort. Perhaps my wife and I would suffer the hardship of having to cut out our 5-night-a week Starbucks habit, but I don't think caffiene and electrical burn medication go well together anyway.

The point is, I am not just flitting through life expecting someone else to pick me up if I stumble. I take the time to look where I'm going, and prepare for whatever may lie on the road ahead.

And I don't expect less of anyone else.

27th July 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
The entire idea of a safety net is an insult. It's nothing more than a statement that people are incapable of planning for their future or being responsible for their own lives.

Ahh, yes, another GenX meanie, someone who's convinced of their own invincibility and superiority.

Time will tell, time will tell.

Michael Redman

27th July 2004, 12:38 PM

It is silly to assert that the safety net exists for the benefit of the poor and feeble at the expense of the powerful. The powerful would obviously never have created it had that been true. The safety net prevents the empowered few from being consumed by the poor masses who might otherwise despair during economic downturns. Had they instituted a safety net of some kind, the French kings would likely have held on to their heads.

Without some level of safety net, there would be less economic stability, and less predictability in the labor market. And less economic growth, and less creation of wealth.

The suggestion that someone who is unemployed due to a plant closing has made a poor career choice is ridiculous.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by gnome
I can agree here... but would point out that IMO the purpose of welfare money is not only to benefit of those in need... but to reduce the strain on society that is created by masses of people without any survival recourse.

To me that's no different than finding out that money I paid in taxes went to roads, or to build tanks. I'm getting something out of it. And I get to vote for the people that decide where the money goes.

I don't imagine a metaphorical "man in black" taking me at gunpoint to give money to highway contractors. Even though I may not use that particular highway...

That said, if you offer a different solution (such as the one above that involves a work program) I'm all for it, if you can get it to function. The devil is in the details, as they say.

I do not fear change in the system, what I oppose are those that seem to advocate scrapping the whole thing without much idea of what they'll do instead.

I don't feel we differ in opinion that greatly on the subject, but I can understand how I do initially come across as an uncompassionate 'work or starve' a-hole.

I really don't mind the government taking a small portion of my check to fund a support system that is effeciently, and fairly run. But I do not feel that recieving money simply because you don't have any is even remotely 'fair' to those providing it. If Government is going to be the broker for my compusory charity, then Government has an obligation to get something for what I'm paying. And that something is labor in return for monetary compensation.

I'd love to see a Public Works department replace Public Assistance. If 'welfare' recipients draw money for not having jobs, then give them jobs so they can earn money.

Seriously, there are endless possibilities for spending $400 Billion on public infrastructure improvements and public service.

But money for nothing is always a bad policy.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by jj
Ahh, yes, another GenX meanie, someone who's convinced of their own invincibility and superiority.

Time will tell, time will tell.

Stop trying to legislate my generoisty, and you won't have any reason to consider me 'mean'.

Time WILL tell. The world belongs to those who take responsibility for their own lives.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
It is silly to assert that the safety net exists for the benefit of the poor and feeble at the expense of the powerful. The powerful would obviously never have created it had that been true. The safety net prevents the empowered few from being consumed by the poor masses who might otherwise despair during economic downturns. Had they instituted a safety net of some kind, the French kings would likely have held on to their heads.

Without some level of safety net, there would be less economic stability, and less predictability in the labor market. And less economic growth, and less creation of wealth.

The suggestion that someone who is unemployed due to a plant closing has made a poor career choice is ridiculous.

It is silly to assert that a man is not responsible for his own choices, and needs to be babied. But I understand exactly the point you're trying to make in your first paragraph. The powerful have a vested interest in keeping the poor content, as opposed to storming their gates. Unfortunately, the third option of actually developing a skill set which would lift one from poverty is a rarely considered option.

And I don't think my last statement that you've quoted is ridiculous in the least. With the educational opportunities that are available for anyone who gives them a half-arsed glance (which I fully support government funding for, by the way), said factory worker is in such a position because:

a. He chose to forego his opportunities
b. He likes that kind of work
c. He's too inept to get a better job

In any case, that's his life, not mine. He can either pack up and get another factory job somewhere else (if there is one), or find some other line of work. I don't owe him a comfortable lifestyle. I don't even owe him life.

He owes it to himself.

Michael Redman

27th July 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
It is silly to assert that a man is not responsible for his own choices, and needs to be babied. Yes. No one is suggesting that, though. But I understand exactly the point you're trying to make in your first paragraph. The powerful have a vested interest in keeping the poor content, as opposed to storming their gates. Unfortunately, the third option of actually developing a skill set which would lift one from poverty is a rarely considered option.

And I don't think my last statement that you've quoted is ridiculous in the least. With the educational opportunities that are available for anyone who gives them a half-arsed glance (which I fully support government funding for, by the way), said factory worker is in such a position because:

a. He chose to forego his opportunities
b. He likes that kind of work
c. He's too inept to get a better job

In any case, that's his life, not mine. He can either pack up and get another factory job somewhere else (if there is one), or find some other line of work. Yes, and as a society, we have found that temporary, partial income replacement allows him to get back into the workforce faster, and resume productive, tax-paying work. That's why we have unemployment insurance. I don't owe him a comfortable lifestyle. I don't even owe him life. Of course you don't. No one is suggesting you do. Your image of the safety net as intended to, or acting, simply to allow the lazy to perpetually avoid self-responsibility is a strawman. Nobody is defending such a system. Such a system is not what we have. (although there are obviously anecdotes that seem to indicate otherwise.)

Anyway, your claim that laid-off the person is unemployed because they made a poor career choice is not supported by your subsequent argument.

gnome

27th July 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
I don't feel we differ in opinion that greatly on the subject, but I can understand how I do initially come across as an uncompassionate 'work or starve' a-hole.

I really don't mind the government taking a small portion of my check to fund a support system that is effeciently, and fairly run. But I do not feel that recieving money simply because you don't have any is even remotely 'fair' to those providing it. If Government is going to be the broker for my compusory charity, then Government has an obligation to get something for what I'm paying. And that something is labor in return for monetary compensation.

I'd love to see a Public Works department replace Public Assistance. If 'welfare' recipients draw money for not having jobs, then give them jobs so they can earn money.

Seriously, there are endless possibilities for spending $400 Billion on public infrastructure improvements and public service.

But money for nothing is always a bad policy.

We might indeed be closer in opinion than I first thought, and that is gratifying. But I wanted to emphasize that "enforced compassion" is not the real push here... there are practical matters that are addressed when trying to resolve these issues.

DavidJames

27th July 2004, 01:34 PM

How about the bastion of socialism FEMA. My tax dollars go towards bailing out those that choose to live in hurricane zones, or flood plains, or tornado zones, earthquake area etc. Or the money that goes to rescuing stranded hikers or climbers etc. Screw 'em all I say.

Actually I don't say that, but thought I'd add to the ranting.

27th July 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
Stop trying to legislate my generoisty, and you won't have any reason to consider me 'mean'.

Time WILL tell. The world belongs to those who take responsibility for their own lives.

How stereotypical your response is! I'm not trying to legislate your generosity at all, I'm simply replying to your self-righteous instance that you'll be all right because you plan and take responsibility. You seem unwilling to defend your position, and you'd rather extend a completely false (as far as summarizing my own position, at least) straw man and attempt to decieve everyone about my position by implying that I hold that position. Your statement is written in the personal, you say "you", so you're obviously claiming that my position is that of legislating your generosity, ergo you are stating a flat-out falsehood. You have no idea what my position is, other than that I find yours foolish, egocentric, and against your own long-term self-interest, let alone that of society's.

The falacious nature ofyour second sentence is quite obvious to anyone with any live experience and any perception of the world around them, so I have to assume that either you're young and full of yourself, or old and with some kind of blinders. In asserting that fallacy, without support, you show the emptiness of your own position, for it is that fallacy that I first attacked, not your weak attempt at a straw man.

27th July 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
...
said factory worker is in such a position because:

a. He chose to forego his opportunities
b. He likes that kind of work
c. He's too inept to get a better job

I see, then you explicitly reject the idea that he may have been forced to forego opportunities due to society, that he may not like the work but be stuck with it thanks to history and historical pressure, that the reason he can't get a better job is related to skill and ability rather than economics or unpredictable changes in how the world works.

Your assumptions presume a static-never changing world in which everyone is in fact born with equal opportunity. We all, everyone of us, know that neither of those assumptions is even slightly justified.

27th July 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
How about the bastion of socialism FEMA. My tax dollars go towards bailing out those that choose to live in hurricane zones, or flood plains, or tornado zones, earthquake area etc. Or the money that goes to rescuing stranded hikers or climbers etc. Screw 'em all I say.

Actually I don't say that, but thought I'd add to the ranting.

I'm not so opposed to rescuing stranded hikers, etc, but I will point out that some of FEMA and the flood insurance terms are indeed stupid beyond belief. I don't know the present policy, but at one point, some people who lived in a flood plain were suing the feds to get them to cough up the insurance payment FOR MOVING OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, but in fact the insurance was valid ONLY IF THEY REBUILT IN PLACE.

Now that is dumb, dumb, dumb, and not the fault of the people who (?finally?) had the brains to want to leave.

Tmy

27th July 2004, 01:54 PM

The problem is that everyone thinks that the entire govt runs on the few thousand dollars that they pay in taxes. Which is silly. THe "my taxes paid for that" line isnt accurate. THe amount Phrosts pays in taxes proabably woudlnt cover the costs to snow plow all the roads he uses. Yet I'm sure he doesnt complain about snow removal being a waste of money.

I think people really are upset with the fraud and not the program. SO they want to toss out the baby with the bathwater.

Tmy

27th July 2004, 01:56 PM

Phrost

27th July 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by jj
I see, then you explicitly reject the idea that he may have been forced to forego opportunities due to society, that he may not like the work but be stuck with it thanks to history and historical pressure, that the reason he can't get a better job is related to skill and ability rather than economics or unpredictable changes in how the world works.

Your assumptions presume a static-never changing world in which everyone is in fact born with equal opportunity. We all, everyone of us, know that neither of those assumptions is even slightly justified.

Paragraph A:

Passing the buck. You can chose to be a vicitim, or you can chose to look to the future and prepare yourself for it.

I'm not speaking to the world, I'm speaking to the opportunities in the US. I spent some of my childhood living in a house with a hole in the floor. I sat on my couch and shot rats with a pellet gun at one point because it was so bad.

Now, through smart decisions (joining the military, getting an education/training in a good career path), I live in a 4400 sq. ft house, drive an Audi, and come home to a beautiful wife. While this may or may not be your idea of success, it's mine, and I earned it myself, every step of the way, by taking the opportunities that were in front of me, and making good (responsible) choices.

I've also put several things in place to help prevent anything from impacting my lifestyle, but even if it should (the entire economy collapsing and humanity regressing to the iron age), I WILL STILL NOT EXPECT ANYONE TO BE FORCED TO HELP ME. I am the master of my own fate, and not a man-child looking for the government to be my parent.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
The problem is that everyone thinks that the entire govt runs on the few thousand dollars that they pay in taxes. Which is silly. THe "my taxes paid for that" line isnt accurate. THe amount Phrosts pays in taxes proabably woudlnt cover the costs to snow plow all the roads he uses. Yet I'm sure he doesnt complain about snow removal being a waste of money.

I think people really are upset with the fraud and not the program. SO they want to toss out the baby with the bathwater.

$12K above what I withheld last year should be enough to clear every road I'd need after a bad snowstorm and buy a crack ho a bowl of cereal or two to spare.

But seriously, I used to be a Democrat, until I moved to California, and saw how the system was being exploited. As I've said a few times in this thread, if the system wasn't being exploited, I probably wouldn't even mind the what... $4.50 a year that gets siphoned out of my check to go to Welfare.

And what's with talking to me indirectly? If you want my response to a statement, just ask. No need to be catty.

gnome

27th July 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
But seriously, I used to be a Democrat, until I moved to California, and saw how the system was being exploited. As I've said a few times in this thread, if the system wasn't being exploited, I probably wouldn't even mind the what... $4.50 a year that gets siphoned out of my check to go to Welfare.

But I would ask, why is abuse of the system causing you to object to the philosophy behind the system?

Phrost

27th July 2004, 03:34 PM

Because there isn't the will to run the system effectively, so the system needs to be replaced with one that the public does have the will to properly administer.

But until I can be guaranteed that my money isn't being wasted in ways that everyone in this thread seems to disagree with, I will not support public assistance in its current form.

And my secondary point is that I'd like to see people work for the assistance they recieve.

Speaking of anecdotal, I know someone who is getting full disability from the government for a heart condition brought on by smoking crack.

I also know of a lot of well-off immigrant families who exploit low-income child care laws in California because the mother's marraige is not recognized in this country. Said mothers drop off their children to the program in new Mercedes and Lexus (Lexi?)and pay next to nothing while everyone else pays around $600+ per child for daycare in that area.

My mother in law was a director in one of these programs, so while you can qualify the above as anecdotal, it's factual as far as I'm concerned.

Solitaire

27th July 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
Will oblige when I get back from spending my hard earned
dollars at that bastion of Capitalism that is McDonald's.

Whoa! Everytime I eat there I get Montezuma's Revenge. :(
My advice try Hardee's.

Unfortunately, any time citizens are allowed to 'vote themselves
money from the treasury' the system will be inherently corrupt to
begin with.

This is a distortion of quote from The Decline And
Fall Of The Athenian Republic by Alexander Fraser Tyler.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate
promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
the result that a democracy always collapses over loose
fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

This refers to the citizens/voters not the people/masses.
When wealth flows to the top through taxes and fraud
systems collapse always. You need about ten percent of
the total economy redistributed to everyone in the economy
in order for it to presist. See: Sigma Xi, Yard Sale Economy.

The government's job is to protect property, not to redistribute it.

Indirectly to support the goals of Life, Liberty, Pursuit Of Hapness,
but no right to property in and of itself.

The powerful have a vested interest in keeping the poor content,
as opposed to storming their gates. Unfortunately, the third option
of actually developing a skill set which would lift one from poverty
is a rarely considered option.

True. Given that any technical, scientific, manufacturing, information
economy job can be deported, you have to find those few that can
not be moved. Not an easy task...

gnome

27th July 2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
But until I can be guaranteed that my money isn't being wasted in ways that everyone in this thread seems to disagree with, I will not support public assistance in its current form.

This is worth exploring... I would have expected we'd agree on what constitutes exploitation.

Speaking of anecdotal, I know someone who is getting full disability from the government for a heart condition brought on by smoking crack.

You can easily (and correctly) argue that this someone does not deserve public assistance. But, you must also ask, what are the consequences of refusing it? Unless you want to look into euthanasia programs, even people that brought their problems upon themselves in disgraceful ways, will need attention.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by gnome

This is worth exploring... I would have expected we'd agree on what constitutes exploitation.

You can easily (and correctly) argue that this someone does not deserve public assistance. But, you must also ask, what are the consequences of refusing it? Unless you want to look into euthanasia programs, even people that brought their problems upon themselves in disgraceful ways, will need attention. [/B]

Poor farms? Dunno. If someone's so committed to laziness they refuse to work in the face of starvation, what do you do?

Is it moral to feed them at the expense of others who have to work for their food?

gnome

27th July 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
Poor farms? Dunno. If someone's so committed to laziness they refuse to work in the face of starvation, what do you do?

Is it moral to feed them at the expense of others who have to work for their food?

An ongoing laziness problem is different than someone that screwed up their own heart. In the latter case, the deed is done; what do you do with them? They can stop being lazy, but they can't fix their heart.

Unfortunately what is moral is not always practical. You have to weigh the unfairness of helping someone who doesn't deserve it, against the damage that might be done (and not just to themselves) by kicking them out into the street to fend for themselves.

Then you try to set things up so that people have incentive to avoid that situation. To be honest, I think the vast majority of people would rather work a little in order to live above the bare minimum. Those that won't... how much does it take to keep them out of trouble?

shuize

27th July 2004, 09:16 PM

I'm with Phrost on this topic.

I too used to lean left in my thinking. One thing that helped change my way of looking at things was working in a state government position. There I had the opportunity to see 1) how much state taxpayer money was wasted on a daily basis, and 2) how often people would flat out defraud the system.

Just one example among many. I can't even begin to count the number of times I saw people come in to the court where I used to work to apply for indegent legal aid driving nicer cars and wearing nicer clothes than I could afford to buy my own family. 99 times out of 100 these very same people qualified for representation by lying about their income and thereby getting already overburdened state attorneys to represent them for free. Who cares that an increased caseload meant lower quality representation for everyone else. Certainly not the folks who lied on their application forms to get free services. Not the state employees whose job it was to verify the incomes of those who applied (easier just to approve them than actually have to lean over to the computer and check the local property tax records) Not their supervisors who used to take 3 hour lunch breaks on state time.

I've come to believe that every politician on the left (or right) who talks about providing more "services" for the poor is basically talking out of his ass. I've seen a few dedicated government workers willing to go the extra mile to help people in need. But I've seen a hell of a lot more who are more interested in stretching their lunch hour into two, leaving early, and, of course, planning their own early retirement on the taxpayer's dime. In the end, "more services" really only means more money spent to pad the wallets of friends in local government. Sure, some services will be provided. But nothing worth anywhere near the amount of money taxpayers have to pay for it. And in the end, who finally benefits from any over-priced government services offered? From what I've seen a good percentage were dishonest people who could just as easily pay for the services in the first place. (Just off the top of my head, I remember one particular example of "pork" after the 9-11 attacks the local county commisioner where I used to live (before moving to Japan) created a new COUNTY office of homeland security and quickly appointed his long time polical pal to head it at a salary of $80,000/year. Now what the hell does "county" office of homeland security do?)

27th July 2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
Paragraph A:

Passing the buck. You can chose to be a vicitim, or you can chose to look to the future and prepare yourself for it.

So, then you insist everyone is capable of this, or you are saying that those who don't succeed should starve?

Please be more specific.

I've also put several things in place to help prevent anything from impacting my lifestyle, but even if it should (the entire economy collapsing and humanity regressing to the iron age), I WILL STILL NOT EXPECT ANYONE TO BE FORCED TO HELP ME. I am the master of my own fate, and not a man-child looking for the government to be my parent.

I see.

Then you appear to be convinced of your own invincibility.

I almost feel sorry for you.

27th July 2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by gnome
But I would ask, why is abuse of the system causing you to object to the philosophy behind the system?

Good question, where's the answer?

gnome

27th July 2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by shuize
I'm with Phrost on this topic.

I too used to lean left in my thinking.

I missed the part where you can't oppose waste and fraud if you lean left.

Phrost

27th July 2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by jj
I see.

Then you appear to be convinced of your own invincibility.

I almost feel sorry for you.

A. Learn to use [quote] tags. It makes your posts much easier to read.

B. Does making predictions about my future make you feel better about yours or are you bucking for the $1M?

I don't consider myself invincible, just responsible for my own life and prepared to deal with just about any challenge that may arise as a result of responsible (there's that word again) planning and preperation.

C. I'm saying each man (used in the 'hu-man' sense, not gender) is responsible for his own way in life, and if he falls on hard times through accident or intention, it should be up to him to seek a solution to his problem.

How is this hard to understand?

Phrost

27th July 2004, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by jj
Good question, where's the answer?

My answer is simple: the philosophy of the system fails to take into account the realities of human nature.

Therefore a system which takes these factors into account, one in which there is no subsistance given without being earned by work (though a public works organization instead of public assistance), will be less likely to run afoul with corruption, waste, and fraud.

You don't work, you don't eat. You don't have a job, the government gives you one until you can find something better. Instead of getting a handout, you are compensated for your effort.

Pretty damn simple if you ask me.

Please bring on the inevitable 'but what if" 's.

shuize

27th July 2004, 10:14 PM

But what if they don't want to work and prefer the government take care of them instead? Then what? Huh?

In response to the point above about being opposed to waste and fraud not being unique to the left. I understand the point. And I understand that the right leaning government officials can waste money too. But, as a philosophy, it seems to me the left tends to expect government to solve everyones' problems. The more authority and money given to government will (again in my opinion) lead to more waste and fraud.

BillyTK

28th July 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
The entire idea of a safety net is an insult. It's nothing more than a statement that people are incapable of planning for their future or being responsible for their own lives.

In fact, it goes that much further to suggest that it's the government's responsibility to be mommy and daddy to citizens who chose not to grow up.
Of course, the undeserving poor should not get any assistance, and of course, simply by virtue of needing assistance, they are, in fact, undeserving.

That said, the government should not be in the charity business, any more than it should be in Religion. Public assistance should come in the form of public works departments which give job opportunities to the unemployed instead of free money for doing essentially nothing. $400+ billion applied to pay unemployed people to sit on their a$ses is waste. $400+ billion worth of labor on public infrastructure is a worthwhile expense.

On with the discussion.
It's a shame the nanny gub'mint outlawed workhouses.

shuize

28th July 2004, 03:57 AM

As much fun as it is arguing about who really deserves financial assistance and who does not, in my experience (at least in the U.S.), the vast majority of people who are not reasonably financially successful are either lazy or have very poor money management skills.

There are very few other reasons why people cannot make something of themselves in the United States. As a nation it's motto ought to be, "The land of second chances." Didn't finish high school? No problem. Here's a G.E.D. program for you. Dropped out of college? No problem. Re-enroll. No money for college or trade school? No problem. Here's a ton of low interest student loan programs. Are you a minority? Even better. Here are even more ways the government practically falls over itself trying to help you. Don't like your job? Feel free to switch. Need a business loan to get off your feet? Can do. Feel strange about gong back to school as an adult? Don't worry, there's plenty of "returning students" just like you.

Unlike other places I've lived, there are always second, third, or more chances available in the United States. Although things are slowly changing here in Japan, there are not nearly as many opportunities for someone who drops out of school or wants to change careers. Oh, and if you're an ethnic minority here, you're screwed. No diversity programs or minority scholarships. Don't expect jack from the government.

BillyTK

28th July 2004, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by shuize
As much fun as it is arguing about who really deserves financial assistance and who does not, in my experience (at least in the U.S.), the vast majority of people who are not reasonably financially successful are either lazy or have very poor money management skills.
In my experience, the vast majority of people who make such hasty generalisations really ought to shut the f*ck up until they've got a wider range of experiences with which to draw conclusions from. For instance, in my experience, Americans are loud-mouthed, over-bearing attention-seekers who carnt sit quietly for more than one minute without risking a cerebral haemorrhage (I've met five); on the otherhand Canadians are the most open, affectionate and generous people ever to walk on the face of this earth (I've met one).

Edited to capitalise first line correctly

Tmy

28th July 2004, 05:22 AM

I think you should acctually look into these welfare systems and really see how they work. If its such the easy life why arent you all on welfare??? Whats stopping you???

As for your suggestions. Lots of them are in place. You can only be on welfare for so long before you are kicked out, they make you do a workfare program to give you skills, you dont get a bonus for haveing more children.

I am fine with all that. In fact I wish there was more fraud investigation.

It just seems that these programs are just anm easy target for people. If you want waste, take a look at military spending. THey seem toget a pass in the name of "security".

I am shocked over many govt programs. For example, VA Hospitals. I always thought they were for current military or people who were injured in the military. I didnt know that you can use military healthcare even though you never were injured on duty, and havent served for years and years.

Tmy

28th July 2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Phrost

And what's with talking to me indirectly? If you want my response to a statement, just ask. No need to be catty.

Didnt mean to be catty. Im enjoying the debate.

Ya know I dont think we are that far apart. People who abuse the system burn me up. (Disability is ripe wh fraud.) What drives me nuts is that when there are budget cuts in programs whats the first thing to get cut..............FRAUD INVESTIGATION!!! Oi Vey!

Michael Redman

28th July 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
Poor farms? Dunno. If someone's so committed to laziness they refuse to work in the face of starvation, what do you do?

Is it moral to feed them at the expense of others who have to work for their food? Every state now has a welfare system with benefits of limited duration, and which requires at least some work after a relatively short period of time. People who receive disability benefits do so because they are not able to work.

Fraud, inefficiency, and corruption are obviously problems that should be dealt with as well as possible. It is a failure of our politicians that they allow such systemic problems to bleed away tax dollars. They do not, however, negate the good that such services provide those who generally need them, and the rest of society as a result.

Pathologically lazy people who refuse to work and expect the government to take care of them may, in fact, exist, but that certainly is not indicative of the vast majority of people who avail themselves of public assistance at some point in their lives. Many regular people encounter temporary difficulty through no fault of their own at some point in life. A system where those down on their luck must dig themselves out without assistance or starve is bad for business, not to mention humanity.

Snide

28th July 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
A. Learn to use [quote] tags. It makes your posts much easier to read.

It seems kind of petty to complain about someone who just "un-bolds" early parts of a quote to reply to, instead of using quote takes for each response.

28th July 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
My answer is simple: the philosophy of the system fails to take into account the realities of human nature.

Therefore a system which takes these factors into account, one in which there is no subsistance given without being earned by work (though a public works organization instead of public assistance), will be less likely to run afoul with corruption, waste, and fraud.

You don't work, you don't eat. You don't have a job, the government gives you one until you can find something better. Instead of getting a handout, you are compensated for your effort.

Pretty damn simple if you ask me.

Please bring on the inevitable 'but what if" 's.

I see, and the mailman who broke their leg in a work accident, and who will be impaired for the rest of her life should do what?

You'll have work for retarded people, for people with mobility impairment, vision impairment, etc, I gather, then?

My point is that it is no way near as simple as you propose to ensure your own safety net, and that lots of random, blameless things can happen to people.

Accidents, diseases and crimes are just a few examples.

As for workfare, I'm absolutely all for it. The previous (now mostly replaced) welfare system in NJ and NY used to be obscenely idiotic, it penalized a person on welfare who got a low-income job by removing all support, even if they worked part-time.

I agree that people should ALWAYS be rewarded for trying to work themselves out of the hole.

But, for that "what if", what if they can't, for instance when it's physically or mentally impossible?

Well?

I don't expect most people to qualify, even people with serious impairments can do something, most of the time, and should both have to AND BE ALLOWED TO.

The thing with some of the systems that frosts me more than anything else is that it penalizes those who TRY. :(

TragicMonkey

28th July 2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
I am shocked over many govt programs. For example, VA Hospitals. I always thought they were for current military or people who were injured in the military. I didnt know that you can use military healthcare even though you never were injured on duty, and havent served for years and years.

The military promises to grant healthcare to retirees. How is that wasteful? The government is fulfilling its legal obligation to veterans. It's the only benefit that makes up for the crappy pay and small pensions. (For the most part: did you know that if you get disabled during military service, you will get a disability check in retirement--but they reduce your pension by the same amount. Isn't that nice? You can be crippled AND cheated of your pension at the same time!)

VA medicine is also nowhere near as good as it sounds. The bureaucracy is much, much worse than a civilian hospital, and the waiting time for treatment in the emergency room is rather longer than would be tolerated elsewhere. And since the doctors are making a fraction of what civilian doctors do, you don't necessarily get the cream of the crop. It's very common for retirees to go to civilian doctors and hospitals simply because they know they'll be getting better healthcare, even though they pay for it themselves.

My father was in the Navy, so I got military medicine until age 18.
I've had scalp wounds sewn up with gravel still inside, sat in a waiting room with a broken arm for twelve hours before getting to see anyone, and been given prescriptions that would actually have killed me because nobody checked to see if I was allergic to anything. On one occasion I came uncomfortably close to dying in the waiting room because some forms needed to be filled out in triplicate before they'd see me. Any military brat or retiree has similiar horror stories.

Tmy

28th July 2004, 12:10 PM

I may be mistaken, but I though you get VA benies even if you did a short tour? Im trying to distinguish from career military types.

For example lets say I was in the ARmy from age 18 to 24. Im now 40 years old, have a steady job and all. Dont I still have access to the VA??? Even though i am capable of having insurance through my job.

If we were to get those type of people out of the VA, then the remainder should have better care with less overall costs. Thats my thinking.

TragicMonkey

28th July 2004, 12:48 PM

It depends on length of service, nature of service, dates of service, and conditions of discharge. All of those things can be changed by Congress whenever--the last big change was in 1996 when they reduced the length of service requirement. But immediately after, to combat costs, they also reduced the number of things covered and increased copayment. I'm betting there will be a wrangle once Iraq veterans start applying for VA benefits, because it hasn't been added to the official list of designated "war years".

I don't think VA benefits are automatic. You have to apply, and you might end up getting a few benefits or none or all of them. I doubt whether a two-year peacetime guy can get the full ride that a WWII veteran will.

(It's not necessarily "free". There are a bunch of agencies that act like HMOs but are government run. Military dependents are usually in CHAMPUS, which means they have to pay for some things, or part of things. Sometimes they can go to civilian doctors and CHAMPUS will pay some, or all, or part...the paperwork is incredible. Imagine your HMO run by the government.....Perhaps that's where the waste is, in managing that bureaucracy.)

Experience of government-run healthcare has convinced me that socialized medicine will never work in the US.