Oh, I knew who and what you were implying. I just wanted to make sure your numpty-rader was finely tuned.
Should welfare be "painful"?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
Ok, lets try this again... there's nothing to prevent a republic from being a "pure" Democracy... i mean the constitutional part is more of an impediment for the "pure" Democracy then the republic part...
Saying that the US isn't a democracy, but a republic is akin to saying evolution is just a theory... makes it look like you have no clue what you're talking about...
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe you haven't run into it as much, not being a foreigner, but not a year goes by that I don't have to correct some boob who say "Nuh uh, we're not a republic, we're a democracy!" Hence, "no, we're a republic." Democracy is not just a process, the word can also mean a specific form of government.
This is a really dumb argument, but I'm just chiming in that I seem to remember that being called a "Direct Democracy", where the populace votes on every decision.
But that's akin to someone saying that Venus is a planet, so it must have life and you countering that it's not a planet...
Both statements are the same mistake, flipped over.
Except that there's no such thing as a government that is just a democracy... even what you deemed a "pure" democracy would actually be an anarchy...
Hell, let's play a game, name one state in the history of forever that was a Democracy the way you where using it... ( i won't even demand that none of the other labels applying to it... because no one was ever had a democracy without limits on it outside an anarchic commune)...
And if you saw that list i posted you'd know even that splits between at least 2 way of doing it...
ElJuski
Staff member
this thread has turned really boring.
no, welfare shouldn't be painful. However, the system should be revised so that we're actively encouraging people to work and get out of welfare--and this means more than just telling poor black people to get off their ass and get a job, goshdamnit.
no, welfare shouldn't be painful. However, the system should be revised so that we're actively encouraging people to work and get out of welfare--and this means more than just telling poor black people to get off their ass and get a job, goshdamnit.
But that would actually imply putting effort into looking for a real solution... and that's just too much work... not that we're lazy ourselves or anytihng.
Can we do that without making it painful? I mean, if all your basic need were met you might still want more, and thus go to the effort of getting off welfare and into a more comfortable living. However I know people who would be fat happy slobs if their basic needs were met. I like to think that everyone has an internal drive - instinctual, almost - that makes them want to attain a good standard of living, but I've long since been disabused of that notion. Many people are actually satisfied if they are fed and warm, and don't seek anything greater.
But if this can be done without pain (and again, I'm using the term "pain" loosely as a placeholder here) or discomfort, then that would be awesome.
What is it that motivates people who have been trapped for so long that not only do they see no way out, but when they do see it, they don't recognize it, or are unable to change so they can follow it?
Dude, it's only been like 100 years since being fed and warm stopped being considered a good standard of living, and that's just in the developed world, plenty of people still have it as a goal they'll need to work way harder for then any 9-5 worker.
But even so, i disagree, maybe a few really are satisfied, but like the drug test thing i'm betting they're in a minority, the problem is more that to get out they usually need to put in 3-4 times the effort someone not in that situation does...so you can't really compare it to you putting in a few extra hours to get more money so you can build a new patio or something.
So there's a bump in effort required, and we need to focus on eliminating that bump? Interesting thought, but I don't see it. Maybe you can give me an example so I better understand this impediment.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, an argument about semantics is way more fun!
Oh fine, I'll drop it for now, too.
I'll be someone's anecdotal evidence for this case - if I, personally, was sent 20k a year tax-free (and could be reasonably assured of its perpetuity), I'd quit in a heartbeat. Would I be rich and bathing in luxury? No, I'd be eating ramen and store-brand peanut butter sandwiches... but I'd still do it. I'd stay home with the little woman and never look out a window.
I'll use this as an example of something I'm sure you'd agree with--not everyone is a leader.
I'm going to enter this as a thought experiment and leave my personal feelings about the real welfare system out of it. For the record, I do support real life welfare because without it, my dickhead father would have been able to get custody of me from my mother and I'd probably still be paying off the therapy bills.
Anyhoo...
My problem with the entire setup and supposition is that the welfare system that is described is so ideal that there's no reason to "force" anyone to get off of it. What is the reason for there being a motivation in the first place? You're basically describing a utopian ideal and asking if we should force people to go against that ideal for no other reason than "just because".
Also, from a sociological standpoint, there's no need for a change in a system that is already running smoothly. If people are raised on an ideal that they only have to work if they want to, they will only work if they want to. It's far to Star Trek.
Anyhoo...
My problem with the entire setup and supposition is that the welfare system that is described is so ideal that there's no reason to "force" anyone to get off of it. What is the reason for there being a motivation in the first place? You're basically describing a utopian ideal and asking if we should force people to go against that ideal for no other reason than "just because".
Also, from a sociological standpoint, there's no need for a change in a system that is already running smoothly. If people are raised on an ideal that they only have to work if they want to, they will only work if they want to. It's far to Star Trek.
Well, check out Jay's post: https://www.halforums.com/threads/5...op-growing-up-poor-cracked.27054/#post-902902
Plus, it's basic supply an demand, when anyone can do the shitty manual labour job and there's plenty of other poor people to do them the pay will always be low... and as becoming skilled labour takes money...
ElJuski
Staff member
Here's the thing guys, and yes, very anecdotal, but I don't think you guys truly understand how the poor live. They're not socialized like we are. The kids I work with are largely homeless, their parents steal their social security checks, they have major drug and behavioral issues, and are largely ignored by the rest of society and the government itself. My kids thrive on pure survival instinct-- they don't think they can live past the age of 21 before being shanked or shot because of some triffling beef on the street.
Now, imagine telling these kids, their parents, and these kid's children that life would be better pushing buttons at a fast food cash register for ten bucks an hour. The concept is so wholly beyond them. So, Gas, as a white dude that has a job and free time to dick around on the internet, it's real easy for you to see how you could sit and loaf around eating ramen all day. You have absolutely no understanding, however, of the severe socio-economic indoctrination that is going on with the poorest of the poor, which is where this shit is all stemming from.
If you want to fix welfare, you need to fix the underlying issue of socialization of the welfare class. They're not doing it because they're lazy--for the most part, at least, and you'll always have a few assholes, no matter what, but that's the price we pay to do something just--they're doing it because they have no fucking clue how the world works besides pure, guttural, survival instinct.
But what do I know? I'm a glorified babysitter.
Now, imagine telling these kids, their parents, and these kid's children that life would be better pushing buttons at a fast food cash register for ten bucks an hour. The concept is so wholly beyond them. So, Gas, as a white dude that has a job and free time to dick around on the internet, it's real easy for you to see how you could sit and loaf around eating ramen all day. You have absolutely no understanding, however, of the severe socio-economic indoctrination that is going on with the poorest of the poor, which is where this shit is all stemming from.
If you want to fix welfare, you need to fix the underlying issue of socialization of the welfare class. They're not doing it because they're lazy--for the most part, at least, and you'll always have a few assholes, no matter what, but that's the price we pay to do something just--they're doing it because they have no fucking clue how the world works besides pure, guttural, survival instinct.
But what do I know? I'm a glorified babysitter.
Well, seeing as we're not following the original parameters (in that this is all theoretical and not tied to the current welfare system). The absolute best deterent for welfare from a psycho-sociological standpoint is the stigma of being on welfare itself. In its initial incarnation, this is exactly how it was viewed. It was completely immasculating to be a man after the great depression and to have to get a handout from the government and not provide for your family.
This has all changed. We now have entire generations who have grown up "in the system". They have been raised without the stigmatization of the welfare system. Actually, I'm usually a bleeding heart liberal, but all the touchy-feely "it's OK to need help sometimes" attitude has led to this. The stigmatization was a built in mechanism that would keep people from abusing the system. To some extent that still exists, as was the case with my mother, and I believe in Dave's case as well. Either way, it was a good deterent. The irony of me pointing that out is that I DO feel that it's OK to need help sometimes and we should do our damnest to help it out, however, we shouldn't remove that stigma entirely as it was a good deterrent.
This has all changed. We now have entire generations who have grown up "in the system". They have been raised without the stigmatization of the welfare system. Actually, I'm usually a bleeding heart liberal, but all the touchy-feely "it's OK to need help sometimes" attitude has led to this. The stigmatization was a built in mechanism that would keep people from abusing the system. To some extent that still exists, as was the case with my mother, and I believe in Dave's case as well. Either way, it was a good deterent. The irony of me pointing that out is that I DO feel that it's OK to need help sometimes and we should do our damnest to help it out, however, we shouldn't remove that stigma entirely as it was a good deterrent.
I just got into a Facebook fight with an acquaintance of mine. He was bitching about how Indian Reservations get government subsistence yadda yadda... just because they're Native American... I asked him if he's serious, because being a white male, age 18-55 is so goddamn hard in the USA.
It's... so ... hard....
That is one of the most slanted and misrepresented charts of data I've ever seen.
Disposable income is cash in hand, only 2 of those programs involve any money at all going to the people receiving the aid.
Protip, even on section 8 housing (which by the way usually deplorable, run by slum lords who see it as a guaranteed check) people still pay a portion of the rent based on income.
It really does go to show that you and the author of the article don't know what the definition of disposable income is, or how aid programs work.
So you can use food stamps and medical insurance to buy TV's in Eagleland? Sounds awesome, where do i sign up...
Yeah, i'm sure the single parent with 3 kids has a higher standard of living...
- Status