Welfare
Perhaps an interesting topic to debate: should your country have a social security system that gives hundreds of dollars every month (, euros, &c) to people who are not even looking for a job, yet are physically able to work nonetheless?
If so, should there be a limit to it?
UPDATE
I believe that welfare should be completely abolished. In the Netherlands we have a system in which people receive a specific amount of money: no ‘rules’ about what they have to spend it on.
I am in favor of supporting the physically and mentally disabled financially.
I am in favor of supporting people who are trying to find a job, but fail doing so, financially. There should be a limitation: four years tops. Sorry to say, but if you cannot find a job, any job, within four years time, you’re not trying hard enough. One of the demands should be that one is actively trying to find a job. If one isn’t, one does not receive any money.
Lastly, I am partially in favor of supporting the elderly: I do believe, though, that we in the Netherlands should work to a system in which people are fully able to save enough money for their own retirement, instead of depending on government aid to be able to quit working when they are, for instance, 65 years old.
68 Responses to “Welfare”
“SO from what you just say you conclude that the value of my labor and investments should be taken from me and given to them?” Did I say that? No. Did I tell my friend that he his an unfortunate victim? No. But you’re telepathic. You’re all knowing. You know that the system is perfect and that any person who isn’t doing as well as you have only themselves to blame even as you mention the word luck. You know for an indisputable fact that it’s always something so minor that anyone can overcome it. Frankly, everything you post sounds like something taken straight from the Cato Institute, AEI or the RNC. Especially the whining about how terrible it is that you pay taxes.
You say, after all “People such as Jim have no real idea how much money is siphoned off from people like me.”. You have no idea who I am. You have no idea how much I make or pay in taxes. But there you are, making inerrant pronouncements about someone you don’t know anything about but have made up your mind concerning because they think you’re actually wrong about something. There are other things I could say about you but they’d cross the line for politeness here no matter how accurate they might be.
Jim what do you think the core aspects of wellfare should be?
Jim said :
You know that the system is perfect and that any person who isn’t doing as well as you have only themselves to blame even as you mention the word luck. You know for an indisputable fact that it’s always something so minor that anyone can overcome it
No, Jim. I don’t speak in absolutes. Sure there are examples of the truly unfortunate. But they don’t comprise the vast majority of cases you mentioned. They make BAD choices such as having several children with no source of income. Sure you can point to the case of the fire hydrant pissing on the dog. In this case it would be the woman who got married and had her husband die tragically in a car accident. Or the many times I hear of the condom that broke. You advocate not simply helping out the blind double amputee. You want a wide safety net to take care of the problems people find themselves in.
Jim, luck plays a part in life. But it is not the governments job to even out the hand of fate.
We both acknowledge that some people do better in Capitalism that do others. We also agree that there is a degree of luck involved but we disagree as to the extent. As a result a we agree that a certain number of people will find themselves in a difficult situation. Here is where we part.
You see government programs as a well to help these people. For the reasons I noted earlier, I find that act as a disincentive and create more problems than they cause. So reasonable people can disagree on the problem and the solution.
But you go a step further. You want to take the value of my labor and investment and give it out to people in the form of social welfare programs. This disrespects my freedom by forcing me to comply. On the other hand, my political belief recognizes and respects your liberty. If you wish to subsidize another individual or you choose to join a co-op or communal living arraignment you are free to do so. Form a kibbutz up in Vermont pr try to create a modern day equivalent of Walloon Two. I think it would devolve into a misguided farce when some people see that others are not putting in an equal effort. But I certainly wouldn’t try to outlaw your right to live in this way.
Jim said :
You say, after all “People such as Jim have no real idea how much money is siphoned off from people like me.”. You have no idea who I am. You have no idea how much I make or pay in taxes. But there you are, making inerrant pronouncements about someone you don’t know anything about but have made up your mind concerning because they think you’re actually wrong about something. There are other things I could say about you but they’d cross the line for politeness here no matter how accurate they might be.
I based my comments on several remarks you have made in previous threads.But if I am mistaken and you are one of the Limousine Liberals my points still stand . It also makes
the example of your friend ring hollow . Just take care of him . The notion that the rest of us should take responsibility for your friends is absurd .
We simply have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom. As I showed above, you want to force me to support your ideals while I allow you to practice yours. Practice what you preach but don’t push your religion on me.
MichealF,
You criticized me earlier for thinking of you as a cliche of the greedy self-centered Republican. Yet every post you’ve made since then has tended to reinforce that view. If we’re going to play the I know what you are and what you think game (Limousine Liberal was the phrase I believe you used most recently.) I think the reason you prefer the method of helping others that you do is the boost it gives your own ego. You spoke of how you brought yourself to your current successful place in life. That is to be admired. What isn’t admirable is the massive ego and sense of self-righteousness it appears to have given you. I don’t think you’ll ever learn another new thing in your life because there isn’t room for enough functioning grey cells after your ego and the RNC talking points have been stuffed into your head.
I also notice the care with which you choose your responses to my points. I said that you struck me as one of those conservatives who wanted all government programs to help the poor eliminated. You said I was wrong. I in turn asked you to point out what programs you’d be willing to leave in place. You never answered. You claim that I believe the rest of you should help my friends. The reality is unlike you, I’m not so foolish as to think that it’s only my friend that needs help. I look past that into the economic statistics and census numbers to realize that there are problems for the unemployed, the underemployed and the working poor that all of your platitudes aren’t going to fix. And that our society is poorer for not trying to create an effective safety net that we will at least try to not let them fall below and at the same time empower them to do the absolute best they can do to help themselves.
BTW, my limo is a 7 year old Taurus while my wife drives the 2 year old vehicle and I do help my friend a great deal.
Mikkel,
The core aspects that welfare should have are to encourage work, first and foremost. Reward those who do begin working by not taking away things they need because they get a job. If the only thing that they get is a part time job don’t make it seem like you’re punishing them for it. If they keep it and are learning good work skills it’s a move forward. The move towards allowing a car to not count as an asset that costs someone benefits is a good move. Where I live, like much of the U.S., to not have a working vehicle is a major obstacle to getting a job. If someone gets a fairly decent job but it doesn’t come with health insurance wait until they make a realistic amount (The floor for current programs is too low in other words.) before taking away their Medicaid coverage.
What’s wrong with public works if there aren’t enough private sector jobs? Look at what was done during the Depression. Why not programs where a city could put in for help to afford more workers to help keep the city clean? Kansas City has a huge amount of parks area. Why not more people to keep the parks and the boulevards beautiful. Think there should be strings that make certain that it’s being done well? Go for it so long as the conditions are reasonable. One problem I see is that the fear of large numbers of government employees means that we have to make large sweeping generalizations instead of trying our best to treat people as individuals, allowing us to help those who need it and threaten those who need that. I can agree with MichaelF that there are those who are just lazy bums. I’ve met a couple. I don’t want them taking from the system. But those who just haven’t learned the right way to work and keep a job should have a chance at learning these skills. If they land a job and it doesn’t work out their first time out there should be the manpower to speak to their employer and find out what went wrong and use it. A “tough love” approach is not only acceptable but almost certainly necessary often. In addition there needs to be a more effective system of solving the problem of affordable housing. I think we could do better if we’d just have some honest attempts at it without partisan political platitudes. Day care is also an issue. Are you really going to in effect tell the poor that they can’t have children? Why not train some of those unemployed people and teach them how to do daycare right and help provide facilities on site in schools and low income housing?
I think our health care system is a handicap for our country. As you might have read from me before I’d like to see a non-profit corporation with the same relation to the government as the post office currently has. It would provide health insurance with charges on a sliding fee scale, help to existing free clinics and its own clinics where none exist. Education on healthy lifestyles would be a big part of what they’d try to do, hopefully working with other non-profits who share a similar mission.
Those are some of my thoughts on the subject without going into the fact that yes, there are people who can’t work for reasons of physical or mental health who need more.
Jim S :
MichealF,
You criticized me earlier for thinking of you as a cliche of the greedy self-centered Republican. Yet every post you’ve made since then has tended to reinforce that view.
Then you have a mental block when it comes to this issue. People can be very philanthropic yet believe that government programs are not the best way to deliver aid. One can be extremely generous but still consider charitable giving to be an individual choice. You have the attitude that people should be forced to finance your social engineering schemes. Why can’t you practice your religion without having to drag the rest of us into it?
talking points have been stuffed into your head.
Jim, you are confused. I consider Republicans to be just as much a danger to freedom as are the Democrats. My concern is for individual liberty. You must have missed that from other threads.
As for learning new things, you could not be more wrong. I’m constantly adding new hobbies and interests. I’m currently researching building methods for creating a cathedral ruin in my back yard. I’m constantly learning different aspects of building which I don’t normally employ. I just enjoy hell out of it. My interest in raising a wide variety of tropical fish has extended to the art of keeping Koi Although I have always been interested in Asian culture I decided to delve more heavily into it after my wife and I adopted our daughter. We travel to China again to adopt a second daughter.
That might give you a hint of the passion I have for life. I surround myself with equally positive people. My ego is always kept in check by those who have achieved so much more than I, despite having to overcome far more difficult obstacles. Although I know people who were born with a silver spoon, the one I am closest to came from very humble beginnings. Recently I met a guy who came from the same slum which produced me. He went on to work for the FBI. Now he is older and has developed significant health problems yet he recently climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro. Guys like him inspire me. I think most people accomplish less than 50 percent of their potential. But the people you describe are lucky to reach 2 percent.
MichaelF,
My problem with your attitude is that leaving it all up to private charity has been proven over and over again to be inadequate. While Dickens wrote fiction the backgrounds he used weren’t made up from whole cloth. The suffering was that endemic. Every charity I know of is constantly short of funds and material. And when I speak of new things I’m thinking of things about economics and politics. That’s where you seem hopelessly rigid to me. You seem to be a libertarian, an ideologue. And frankly, they seem as reasonable to me as communists. You still just don’t see that every post you make reinforces what I am saying about your attitude. That is that you seem to consider these people lesser beings who deserve whatever fate befalls them because you know how they ought to behave, what they ought to do because you know what you would do.
Jim S (mail):
MichaelF,
My problem with your attitude is that leaving it all up to private charity has been proven over and over again to be inadequate. While Dickens wrote fiction the backgrounds he used weren’t made up from whole cloth. The suffering was that endemic
Very weak example Jim. Comparing 19th century England to our modern democracy is irrelevant. The wide range of differences make that comparison irrelevant
Jim said :
You seem to be a libertarian, an ideologue. And frankly, they seem as reasonable to me as communists.
Think about that comment. Let it percolate for a while. It’s an issue of freedom. AGAIN, Libertarians allow you to practice your economic philosophy so long as you don’t force it upon others. That is a distinction which makes your comparison with communists absurd.
Why can’t you practice your form of religion without forcing me to take part? The answer is simple. It can’t work on it’s own.
Jim said :
That is that you seem to consider these people lesser beings who deserve whatever fate befalls them because you know how they ought to behave, what they ought to do because you know what you would do.
You need desperately to demonize those with whom you don’t agree. I have stated several times that I consider people far more capable than do you. The deserve a fate far better than what your pathetic social programs have wraught .you own the pain and suffering of the children brought up in second and third generation welfare families. The deserve far better than the results of your condescending attitude.
So there is a valid debate as to which political perspective actually helps the poor the most. We can also debate who has the best intentions. But ultimately I contend my liberty trumps your good or bad intentions.
MichaelF,
My comment about libertarians being similar to communists has a very simple basis. It’s not that what they want are similar, it’s that they both are seemingly clueless as to what the real world is like and what is meaningful to the majority of the population. They are both philosophies that mean to be a true believer you must be an ideologue first and foremost. They are both extreme views of what is possible and both are wrong more often than right.
It’s about freedom Jim. If it makes you feel better to consider them clueless so be it. But it is quite a stretch to conclude these people are
. ” seemingly clueless as to what the real world is like and what is meaningful to the majority of the population.”
They have as good a grasp of the world and the people living in it as do you. They also do not lack an understanding or what people want or would like. They just don’t conclude people should be guaranteed there wishes.
You also have no real clue as to what Libertarians are like. Calling them ideologues may make it easier for you to dismiss them, but it does not make it true. Just as Democrats differ on a wide range of issues, so do Libertarians. Perhaps you simply don’t understand what it means to be an ideologue, or a Libertarian, or both
I know quite well what Libertarians believe. While there is a fairly narrow spectrum of difference it is still the polar opposite of communism, taking freedom for the individual so far that society becomes meaningless except as a purely self-defined term. To a large extent is a blind worship of the the free market’s ability to solve all problems whether economic or social. They do believe in large part that the wealthy should be granted all their wishes unless you want to say that they are so clueless as to not realize that a society organized along their preferences inevitably leads to that. So yes, they are ideologues with the beginning of their belief systems being further to the non-authoritarian right than the overwhelming majority of the population. While you think that me calling them ideologues is so that I can dismiss them it is instead from an extensive knowledge of their beliefs. They may deny the label, but they tend to earn it. Rush Limbaugh says that no one in the Republican Party is an ideologue. It doesn’t make it true.
Jim said :
Rush Limbaugh says that no one in the Republican Party is an ideologue. It doesn’t make it true.
The same can be said of Democrats such as you. You seem to miss the fact that there is a great difference between political theories and political parties? You can find ideologies in each. You are as much an ideologue as am I. It’s what allows you to feel OK about robbing other people.
LOL! It’s the only thing I could type. The old taxes are theft meme. Please, please, move out to some nice desert island so you can avoid all of the evil thieves who want to take your money. Obviously you’ve only been reading part of my posts.
Jim S said :
Please, please, move out to some nice desert island so you can avoid all of the evil thieves who want to take your money.
As I said before , you could join a kibutz or a communal living situation . They are perfectly consistent with the free market . If you don’t like what is out there , start your own. But please , don’t ask me to pool my resources with you . I consider it a losing proposition
What a surprise. You don’t answer my point about the utter stupidity of the “taxes are theft” meme. Your post after all said “It’s what allows you to feel OK about robbing other people.”.