|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Welfare - what is it and who benefits | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: It's not just that it makes it easier for the welfare critics to take help away, whatever that means, it's also part of the human condition. Working hard on a project while that one guy in the group doen't do anything sucks, but capitalizing on that reward drives you to do it anyways. Trying to make that out as some kind of pathology is a little disgusting, at face value. I haven't read this thread, and I'm not sure I want to...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Working hard on a project while that one guy in the group doen't do anything sucks, but capitalizing on that reward drives you to do it anyways. Agreed, and that would not be taken away with minimum wage or living basic income -- you would still have the ability to drive and increase your returns. I think you're missing my point: People don't generally like to be forced to help bums (people who don't contribute but do take). On the other hand, they will totally help people when they want to, and also if it benefits themselves. But being forced to out of the goodness of their hearts? Not so much. So sticking with the group project analogy: Pointing out that this percentage of group project bums receives a passing grade in the class, and that percentage of bums actually benefits educationally from the project even though they didn't contribute, is not going to make people feel better about, or want to start, being forced into helping the bums more. (staying in the analogy here, I'm not equating welfare benefactors with bums, and by bum I don't mean "homeless person", I mean like bumming a cigarette, or not contributing to a group project) A better approach for the use of force, in my opinion, is to realize the benefits that contributors will receive if they capitalize on the reward they'll get even despite the bum not doing anything. I guess; more carrot, less stick.
Trying to make that out as some kind of pathology is a little disgusting, at face value. Then you are either missing the point or taking umbrage at something that only applies in extreme conditions. Compare a person who has a few cats to one with a household of cats (addicted to cats?). I probably am missing the point. Why are you equating capitalists to patholical people? Are you failing to recognize that, while capitalism doesn't drive public spending on welfare, that many capitalists do a lot privately to help a lot of people?
I haven't read this thread, and I'm not sure I want to... Perhaps because it goes against your biases. I knew you'd say that. Perhaps your argument really is disgusting. Demonizing people with different opinions is pretty awful.
Your loss. Not really. I didn't start the thread and I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything. Plus, I'm a fairly conservative person so unless you're just trying to have a circlejerk and pat yourselves on the backs for all the great beliefs you have, then I suppose I should be a part of your target audience. For what it's worth, I see quite of bit of non-sequiturs in your "myth-arguments"... For example, the mythological "welfare queen"... I've seen and talked with people like that around where I live. Your argument that "nuh-uh, the corporations are the real welfare queens" rings hallow and doesn't negate the people that I've met. Or, that welfare payments are too high... Talking about the cost of the average benefit per person does nothing to negate my experience with the guy I met who was selling stacks of food stamps outside the grocery store at half price so he could convert them into cash money. Regarding the effectiveness of welfare, your argument assumes that if the government stopped providing assistance then people in need would receive absolutely no assistance at all. In reality, there are many non-government programs that provide assistance to poor people. You also contradict yourself:
quote: What the data shows is that most people on various welfare programs ARE working, sometimes 2 or 3 jobs, but the PAY is not enough to live on and they qualify for benefits because their income is low. Personally, I prefer to make my own decisions on how my money goes to help people, rather than throwing it into a tax-pool and letting other people decide how to use it. I'm a capitalist who does like to help people, and I'm not pathological nor psychopathic. I try not to let my personal beliefs get in the way of business, but socially I'm very generous and considerate. So I'm most likely not going support government welfare programs that much, but that doesn't really reflect my character. And for you to demonize your opponents as pathological people is just wrong. Plus, it's totally ruining your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Isn't it really the idea that people are getting money that you don't think they deserve a fairly significant part of why public welfare is different from spending on a public road? Hey, there you go demonizing me. You guys just can't help yourselves, can you? My opinion is different from yours so there must be something wrong with me, right? No, it has nothing to do with what people deserve. I just prefer private enterprise over public ones. I suspect you folks on the left realize that you can't really win the hearts and minds of those with different opinions than yours', so you're so big on public enterprises because know that the only way to get them on board is by force through government. I consider that immoral.
I suspect that you don't want to build your own roads, I've driven on the Dulles Greenway, and do prefer and always choose to pay for that privately owned highway over the public ones around there. I'd bet the other privately owned highways in America are better and preferable, too. Not that I'm promoting that as a be-all and end-all solution to our highway systems...
raise your own army, Ahem, do you really support the financing of our military at the expense of other programs?
and I suspect that you don't home school your kids. I don't have any kids, but I've never been to a public school. And I know that my private school education was better than the public ones around. I'm not saying that the public options shouldn't exist, I just don't like being demonized for having the opinion of not wanting to be forced into them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's how I read what you say. I don't think I'm capable of effectively communicating with you. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But then, pointing out that most people are the bum on one project or another - Most people? Really?
And maybe if we pointed out that there once was a time when only bums of a certain type, say those who liked certain fruits or a particular band were helped out by their project-mates and those who like that other fruit, or band, were shunned and had to drop out of education - even if they had worked on loads of projects before and now their life is screwed all because they didn't like NSYNC. So, some subset of people did not want to help another subset of people. And the answer to that was to force them by government. Or no?
And maybe if we reminded people from time to time that we can't always be sure what criteria our project-mates will use if and when we have to bum through a few projects for whatever reason, we might realize it is in our self-interest. Maybe then they'd understand that if we divest the decision making to a third party teacher - one that we all vote on to be head of bum-assistance, that might mitigate the arbitrary criteria problem - maybe then it wouldn't feel like being 'forced' but more like its a just a way of doing things that sometimes we don't like but on the whole is for the best. Especially if we remind people that if random events could mean anybody gets kicked out of school (including yourself and your family) that means less people are in school, which means less project-mates in the future which means more work to achieve the same results - which in practice leads to worse results...maybe they'd be less inclined to feel it was forcible. Sure, but that's all different than "debunking myths" and calling people pathological.
There's plenty of carrot in the tax system, it's just some people only think about the stick. And the 'force' is the same 'force' applied to people that are 'forced' to drive on the right side of the road, pass a test before being allowed to drive, restricting alcohol, tobacco and firearm distribution and so on. I feel differently on the matter when we're talking about how my money is being spent.
Well, we've seen what life is like with little to no state welfare - its hell for most people. Again, most people? I guess I'm not sure what you're referencing. How far back are you going?
Well actually it does, that's why averages are used, after all. To show the norm, not highlight the outliers. Is there something wrong about selling resources for liquid capital? I thought you were pro-capitalism? No, I don't blame the guy for capitalizing on that opportunity. That was in response to the question of the "payments being too high" in welfare; I've wondered why all those extra food stamps were around if the people getting them weren't using them for food (this was a while ago, there's actually debit cards now - I've only had one guy try to sell me a card, but that didn't even make any sense).
Well yes, and that's kind of the problem. There are some groups who need help who aren't as popular as others. Relying on private crowd funding can result in groups who are forgotten, ignored or shunned landing in even more desperate situations. As has, historically, been the case and was the very reason welfare situations came into being. So take Catholics not wanting to support abortion for moral reasons as an example. If they don't want their money going to Planned Parenthood, then I think it's wrong to use the government to force them into it.
How much would you give to social security charities every year? $200? $800? $2,000? This money goes towards the retired, the disabled, the children of the aforementioned etc. How much money would give towards helping people in need of medical care? $200? $800? $2,000? How much to the needy - the poor? $50? $300? $2,000? What do you think the average would be? If you were earning $60,000 would you give twice as much? Do you think people on average would? How much time would you spend ensuring the charities you give to are spending effectively? How would you know? How would you be sure the people receiving your generosity truly deserved it and weren't just bumming off you? How much time would you spend ensuring your generosity was being evenly distributed amongst those that need it? How would you learn this? Would you give to many small charities which may be less efficient spending due to larger relative staff overheads, smaller negotiating power to get good deals - or would you go for larger groups who are less focussed but in some ways more efficient - increasing the chances of missing certain groups - but also losing some efficiency on increased fund-raising/marketing efforts to maintain their large size? How do you balance between them? How often would you review your charitable distributions? An easy solution is to just go through my parish... that's open-book and supports all kinds of different programs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As Theodoric already informed you, no federal money is used to fund abortions. That is explicitly against the law. Planned Parenthood does not use any federal money for abortions. That's beside the point, they don't have to use federal money directly on abortions in order for someone to not want to support them.
Planned Parenthood provides many more vitally needed services. Sure, but it doesn't matter. The point still stands: Using the government on people against their will to force them to your will can be immoral. When people aren't being charitible to the things that you would like them to be charitable to, then using the government to divert their tax money into supporting things that they want to not support is you forcing them to do something against their will because of your own preferences. That's not how win people over to your side. Maybe I got this whole thread wrong, but it looked like it was trying convince people that welfare is a good thing that they should support. Calling out "myths" is nonproductive, nobody cares. Calling people pathological is just going to turn people away. And simply using the government to force them into participating will get the job done, temporarily, but if people haven't been won over to your side then it can simply vanish when your side is no longer in power. Even arguing that "my way is the best way" doesn't really convince people to join you. If you really want welfare to be a thing that people are happy to support, then you should try some different approaches. As I've said, showing the benefits that the individuals who contribute could capitalize on might be better.
Now, aren't we talking about that best of the four forms of charity? I wasn't. I don't care which one is the best. I was talking about my personal preferences.
OK, if you are not satisfied with Jewish wisdom and charity (which is unsurpassed) ... . What is your solution? Just keep paying my taxes and then bitch about it when I want to. I entered this thread to point out that the approach was shitty. I'm not arguing that welfare shouldn't be a thing, or that the govenrment shouldn't be involved.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024