Tired of Sheep Being Referred to as "Americans"

[Hobot]

If you don't help those who can't produce then they will never end up producing.

Neither will rewarding them not to produce. The system stops rewarding you when you become more productive, what do you think people are going to do? Subsidies tend to create more of whatever is being subsidized, and welfare recipients are no exception.

The system can hardly said to be rewarding those who don't produce. Welfare recipients don't live a life of luxury. It is supporting, not rewarding, it's a big difference.

[SirNitram]

If you don't help those who can't produce then they will never end up producing.

Neither will rewarding them not to produce. The system stops rewarding you when you become more productive, what do you think people are going to do? Subsidies tend to create more of whatever is being subsidized, and welfare recipients are no exception.

Because the current system is broken, all incarnations must be evil. Riiiiight. Look, I won't argue that the US welfare system, as it stands, needs work. However, there is a big bloody line between 'needs work' and 'must be obliterated'. Personally, I've found at least one incarnation which does work, down here in WV. To get the welfare check, you have to have proof you've been looking for work. Phone numbers, copies of job apps..

[Joe]

If you don't help those who can't produce then they will never end up producing.

Neither will rewarding them not to produce. The system stops rewarding you when you become more productive, what do you think people are going to do? Subsidies tend to create more of whatever is being subsidized, and welfare recipients are no exception.

The system can hardly said to be rewarding those who don't produce. Welfare recipients don't live a life of luxury. It is supporting, not rewarding, it's a big difference.

Hairsplitting. The fact remains that the less-productive get the bulk of the money, and the more-productive get squat (plus they pay more taxes).

[Hobot]

Hairsplitting. The fact remains that the less-productive get the bulk of the money, and the more-productive get squat (plus they pay more taxes).

Hairsplitting my ass, there is a big difference between support and reward.

Don't give me that bullshit about the less productive getting the bulk of the money, unless you're talking about music artists, athletes and CEO's, because then I'd agree with you.

[Coyote]

What are you all about, Rucker? Seriously? Don't you have anything better to do? Please go away.

[Keevan_Colton]

What are you all about, Rucker? Seriously? Don't you have anything better to do? Please go away.

I think he honestly has nothing at all better to do in the world.....

[Darth Wong]

Don't think in terms of absolute "rights"; think in terms of pragmatism. Don't make the rules of a particular ethical system into their own goals (eg- the classic error of purely rights-based ethics; it defines a concept of morality based on rights, and then defines the protection of those rights, ie- its own tenets, as the ultimate goal of a system of morality, thus using a circular justification).

If you want a society where as many people as possible are reasonably safe and happy, you need to examine the complex variables involved and see if you can tweak them accordingly. What works today might actually not work 50 years from now; a little bit of flexibility is required, rather than worshipping the system you created.

In the case of social welfare, absolute arguments for its total lack of necessity disregard the fact that A) people won't voluntarily help the less fortunate and B) sufficient social disparity will cause a variety of associated problems that no one wants to occur in his society (eg- elevated crime, widespread suffering, increased violence and decreased security, social scapegoating leading to hate groups, etc).

You end up with a perverse situation where people sanctify their preferred system of ethics so that its preservation becomes more important than the general welfare of the population. In most cases, they try to rationalize this by pretending that it would not have this effect, in various sparkling displays of naivete. But what if it does? Their worldview leaves no flexibility to answer this question, so they simply refuse to accept the possibility.

Is the current US welfare system in bad shape? Perhaps; I don't know much about it, and if it's as badly run as your health-care system, it wouldn't surprise me. The concept of welfare, however, still works. There are many examples of industrialized nations which have successfully implemented social welfare and have much better crime statistics than the US, for example. And one common element of countries which are horrible to live in is that they lack such systems.

[J]

The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean that no other man may rightfully take these away from any man, except as punishment for violating the selfsame rights of others, or by force used in defense.

The right to life means no man may initiate force to take it from you.

The right to life does not mean that others must provide you that which you need to continue to live. That is your own responsibility, as owner of your own life.

To suggest that the productive have an involuntary obligation to provide for those who do not produce is to advocate slavery.

No rationalizing or citation of "need" or existing immorality (i.e. "that's how government and taxes work") change this fact.

And you've just described the blueprints for complete and total anarchy. Tell me then, how well does such a system work? I can sum it up in 2 words, "idealistic pipedream".

[Joe]

If you don't help those who can't produce then they will never end up producing.

Neither will rewarding them not to produce. The system stops rewarding you when you become more productive, what do you think people are going to do? Subsidies tend to create more of whatever is being subsidized, and welfare recipients are no exception.

Because the current system is broken, all incarnations must be evil. Riiiiight. Look, I won't argue that the US welfare system, as it stands, needs work. However, there is a big bloody line between 'needs work' and 'must be obliterated'. Personally, I've found at least one incarnation which does work, down here in WV. To get the welfare check, you have to have proof you've been looking for work. Phone numbers, copies of job apps..

Yes, it is true that the American welfare system is much less destructive than it used to be, on account of welfare reform (a Republican idea, BTW, for which they were labeled with the same stock rhetoric that is being thrown around in this thread). It still does not work extremely well; it still rewards single-mothers, for example, which can only keeps them and their children in poverty in the long run. Perhaps local governments will be able to more effectively care for the real poor, but the lower class in America can't afford to have the federal government look after it.

[Joe]

Hairsplitting my ass, there is a big difference between support and reward.

The intent is different, but the effect is the same. The government isn't intending to reward low profit margins and inefficiency when they write billion dollar checks to Chrysler, but the result is same as it would be if they did.

Don't give me that bullshit about the less productive getting the bulk of the money, unless you're talking about music artists, athletes and CEO's, because then I'd agree with you.

Red herring fallacy; I'm talking about welfare money, which the less productive do in fact receive the bulk of.

[Hobot]

Agreed Wong.

Most of the US's social problems can probably be rooted to the social disparity between the rich and the poor. If you look at countries like Japan and Norway where there is very little disparity, their standard of living is much higher.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You know, this kind of inflammatory shit makes it quite difficult to be a libertarian. Do try to be a little less callous. It's this callousness that will never enable us to reclaim the moral high ground, which we've long since lost (if we even ever had it).

I can't use my eyes not to see, or my mind not to reason and judge.

If truth is hurtful, is it the fault of the truth teller, or those who see it, but don't wish to?

It's the fault of the "truth-teller" for not choosing his words with tact. You've heard of tact, I assume? It's that little thing that makes it possible to tell someone off in such a way that they genuflect and learn, rather than put a bullet through your 7th vertebra.

On a side note, has anyone here ever seen the mini-series version of The Stand? I'm suddenly reminded of the following exchange:

Dana: "Where are all the chairs?"
Randall Flagg: "Oh, I had them taken out, dear. Liars sit in chairs. Truth-tellers just sorta... hunker down."

[Hamel]

Yes, it is true that the American welfare system is much less destructive than it used to be, on account of welfare reform (a Republican idea, BTW, for which they were labeled with the same stock rhetoric that is being thrown around in this thread).

No one had much basis for bitching about it before Clinton neutered it, and they have FAR less to bitch about now.

It still does not work extremely well; it still rewards single-mothers, for example, which can only keeps them and their children in poverty in the long run.

Hinting at the urban legend of all these welfare queens having babies for the express purpose of getting more money from the gov't? Kinda reminds me of Reagan's anecdote on that one particular woman who supposedly bought a ton of cars with her welfare checks; such a person never actually existed.

Perhaps local governments will be able to more effectively care for the real poor, but the lower class in America can't afford to have the federal government look after it.

Privatise it and watch everyone get ripped off. That tends to happen when you privatise such services.

[Hobot]

Hairsplitting my ass, there is a big difference between support and reward.

The intent is different, but the effect is the same. The government isn't intending to reward low profit margins and inefficiency when they write billion dollar checks to Chrysler, but the result is same as it would be if they did.

So you think someone with a steady job would like to abandon it so they can get a "reward" from the government in the form of welfare?

Don't give me that bullshit about the less productive getting the bulk of the money, unless you're talking about music artists, athletes and CEO's, because then I'd agree with you.

Red herring fallacy; I'm talking about welfare money, which the less productive do in fact receive the bulk of.[/quote][/quote]

Of course they're less productive, that's why they're getting the money in the first place so they can get back on their feet.

[Joe]

Most of the US's social problems can probably be rooted to the social disparity between the rich and the poor. If you look at countries like Japan and Norway where there is very little disparity, their standard of living is much higher.

Actually, that varies. No country has a definitive margin of superiority in living standards; Americans tend to enjoy more material amenities than anyone else in the world, for example, but fall behind on life expectancy; Swedes tend to enjoy higher life expectancies but tend to lack material comforts comparable to what Americans enjoy.

[Joe]

No one had much basis for bitching about it before Clinton neutered it, and they have FAR less to bitch about now.

They certainly did. The Democratic party did, too, in fact; at the 1992 DNC, a speaker made a speech questioning the continued existence of entitlement, to which she was wildly applauded.

Hinting at the urban legend of all these welfare queens having babies for the express purpose of getting more money from the gov't? Kinda reminds me of Reagan's anecdote on that one particular woman who supposedly bought a ton of cars with her welfare checks; such a person never actually existed.

It's not an urban myth, it's fact. Why do you think there is so much illegitimacy among black Americans, a group which is known to receive a proportionally large percentage of welfare money?

Privatise it and watch everyone get ripped off. That tends to happen when you privatise such services.

Actually, the privatization of Social Security in Galveston has worked very well. However, I am not talking about privatization of such services, just decentralization.

[Joe]

So you think someone with a steady job would like to abandon it so they can get a "reward" from the government in the form of welfare?

No, but individuals on welfare are going to be less likely to want to get off of it; human nature, after all, is to avoid pain, and work of any sort is pain unto itself.

[Hobot]

Most of the US's social problems can probably be rooted to the social disparity between the rich and the poor. If you look at countries like Japan and Norway where there is very little disparity, their standard of living is much higher.

Actually, that varies. No country has a definitive margin of superiority in living standards; Americans tend to enjoy more material amenities than anyone else in the world, for example, but fall behind on life expectancy; Swedes tend to enjoy higher life expectancies but tend to lack material comforts comparable to what Americans enjoy.

Who cares about material goods if your crime rate is higher, your life expectancy lower, your heath care inferior, your rich/poor divide is greater, etc etc?

[Hobot]

Hinting at the urban legend of all these welfare queens having babies for the express purpose of getting more money from the gov't? Kinda reminds me of Reagan's anecdote on that one particular woman who supposedly bought a ton of cars with her welfare checks; such a person never actually existed.

It's not an urban myth, it's fact. Why do you think there is so much illegitimacy among black Americans, a group which is known to receive a proportionally large percentage of welfare money?

No it is a myth.


"Reagan's story of a Welfare Queen driving a Welfare Cadillac was apocryphal. Even so, there is no evidence that welfare cheating is a significant problem; besides, individual welfare payments are too small for recipients to live well."

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

[Joe]

Who cares about material goods if your crime rate is higher, your life expectancy lower, your heath care inferior, your rich/poor divide is greater, etc etc?

I'm not just talking about material luxuries. I'm talking about amenities, like toilets, sinks, showers, washing machines, microwaves, etc. Even the poorest American households tend not to lack these things.

[Joe]

"Reagan's story of a Welfare Queen driving a Welfare Cadillac was apocryphal. Even so, there is no evidence that welfare cheating is a significant problem; besides, individual welfare payments are too small for recipients to live well."

That particular case is a myth. I was referring to the general trend.

[SirNitram]

Yes, it is true that the American welfare system is much less destructive than it used to be, on account of welfare reform (a Republican idea, BTW, for which they were labeled with the same stock rhetoric that is being thrown around in this thread). It still does not work extremely well; it still rewards single-mothers, for example, which can only keeps them and their children in poverty in the long run. Perhaps local governments will be able to more effectively care for the real poor, but the lower class in America can't afford to have the federal government look after it.

No, what the American poor can't afford is to have one of their few chances for income in this piss-poor economy taken away because people feel they shouldn't have to pay taxes. It's one thing to sit high and mighty, well out of the blast zone, and proclaim this and that, but as someone whose hit bottum(fuckin' economy) and used the local welfare until I got my current temp job, I can tell you that, while there are bad eggs abusing the system(What system is unabusable, exactly?), it's very necessary.

Again, arguments for improving it are great. Abolishing it because it's not perfect is bullshit. Especially when the other option, for ALOT of people, is to shrivel up and die, and the rest to cause chaos because they're trying to survive.

[Hobot]

Who cares about material goods if your crime rate is higher, your life expectancy lower, your heath care inferior, your rich/poor divide is greater, etc etc?

I'm not just talking about material luxuries. I'm talking about amenities, like toilets, sinks, showers, washing machines, microwaves, etc. Even the poorest American households tend not to lack these things.

And you think people in Scandanavian countries don't have those things?

That particular case is a myth. I was referring to the general trend.

Proof?

Personally, I don't see welfare recipients living a life of luxury.

[Durandal]

People living on government assistance aren't living a life of luxury, I hate to tell you. The only reason my family's surviving right now is because my mom now works full-time (she only used to be part-time, but went full-time because of the benefits, even though her current salary is effectively less than what she used to get because she always worked overtime), and we have savings for times like this.

Even so, my dad is a productive citizen who pays his taxes. When he falls on hard times, it's in the government's best interest to help him out while he finds another job because he'll be paying taxes again and making money for the company he works for. We shouldn't eliminate government assistance; we should make it stricter so that people don't spend their lives on it while allowing productive people who got screwed to get back on their feet.

[Joe]

No, what the American poor can't afford is to have one of their few chances for income in this piss-poor economy taken away because people feel they shouldn't have to pay taxes. It's one thing to sit high and mighty, well out of the blast zone, and proclaim this and that, but as someone whose hit bottum(fuckin' economy) and used the local welfare until I got my current temp job, I can tell you that, while there are bad eggs abusing the system(What system is unabusable, exactly?), it's very necessary.

If you'll please notice, I'm not advocating that we just throw all welfare out, at least not yet. In a country as large as the United States, the federal government simply isn't going to be suited to deal with poverty as much as local governments are. The programs should be handed over to the states.

And you think people in Scandanavian countries don't have those things?

Middle-class and upper-class households do without exception, but the poorest households tend to lack these things in greater percentages. There are some statistics here. Ignore the rest of the article; I don't agree with everything there, either.