Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:10 PM
OsageOrange is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 19

The Welfare Queen, Redux


I don't know about anybody else, but I'm getting sick and tired of all poor people getting treated like shit just because they're poor. Back in the eighties, the myth of the "Welfare Queen" made people start thinking that all poor people on welfare or food stamps or both must be lazy bums who don't want to work and who have kids by the dozen so they can get more out of the government; this was revived in the nineties by Newt Gingrich and his meaner, rougher GOP, and voila, here it is again! We are NOT lazy, we WOULD rather have health care than iPhones, and for the love of God, we DO want to work!!!!
  #2  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:36 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,939
Yes, but as a welfare recipient you shouldn't have the ability to post on the Internet, you should be living on a subsidence diet and government cheese and shopping only at good will type stores. If you need to make a phone call it should be at one of the many pay phones and as for entertainment, well maybe stick ball or singing harmony on the corner?

This is what many seem to think, and yes they are real, I've talked to them. I never enjoy the conversations but I've heard them, you see as a middle class white guy I am in their mines obviously on their "team".
  #3  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:48 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,390
But y'all have fridges, conditioned air, microwaves, sometimes even computers and the 'ternet ! How can you call yourselves poor ?! If you're not subsisting on a diet of stale bread while living out of a rainwater ditch, y'alls are just freeloaders, plain and simple. Just a fact*.


*this is not intended as a factual statement

Last edited by Kobal2; 03-22-2017 at 07:49 PM.
  #4  
Old 03-22-2017, 08:52 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,332
How much do those idiots at Fox think a microwave costs? You can buy a used microwave for ten bucks. It's not a sign of wealth.

Between this and Kellyanne Conway I'm wondering if the right wing is having a contest to see who can make the dumbest remark containing the word "microwave".
  #5  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:07 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,374
Well, they've got to make a choice. And so, maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love, maybe they should invest it in their own health care.
  #6  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:14 PM
Crazyhorse's Avatar
Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,285
Yeah, these people could just give up the next 100 iPhones they were going to buy and pony up for that 2 day hospital stay themselves.
  #7  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:16 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
I realize there's this quasi-religious mindset in America where punishment is more important than assistance, but if it costs $100 to subsidize a poor person and $200 to jail them, that doesn't strike me as a "left" vs "right" conflict, just a "good economic sense" vs "bad economic sense" one.

Basically, fuck all that "moral hazard" bullshit, what is cheaper in the long run?
  #8  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:33 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,142
Wow, I saw someone claiming that Obama said this. Maybe they were being sarcastic in reply to someone else. But, if not, that's really bad if words by a conservative get put in a liberal's mouth by conservatives.

Anyways, in response to the OP, there are many, many ways that even the poorest people can have access to the Internet. For one thing, there are subsidies if you are poor and have school-aged children. Around here, you could get a fairly lowspeed broadband for $5 a month.

And then there are tons of places with free Wi-fi. And free computer access for people who don't even have computers. And free donated old computers that people can get. And this is in my podunk town.

So, yeah, the Internet is the absolute dumbest thing they could attack poor people over.

------

Unless, of course, you're trolling. Then I should pretend to be upset, so you'll keep on posting these things. I don't think I've ever seen a proper liber-troll that wasn't some strawman.

If you're actually poor, then welcome.

Last edited by BigT; 03-22-2017 at 09:35 PM.
  #9  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:38 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,317
Give a man a fish and you can feed him for a day.
Teach a man a fish and you can feed him for a life time.
Tell a man to go fish while you slam to door in his face and you can feel superior to him until he dies.
  #10  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:43 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Teach enough of them to fish and they will starve when the fish are all gone.
  #11  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:43 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Wow, I saw someone claiming that Obama said this. Maybe they were being sarcastic in reply to someone else. But, if not, that's really bad if words by a conservative get put in a liberal's mouth by conservatives.
Well, from that link:
Quote:
It’s true that Obama once made a similarly tone-deaf remark about cell phones and insurance. “If you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell phone bill, it may turn out that it’s just they haven’t prioritized health care,” he said to a constituent about health care costs in 2014. But ultimately, the president was arguing for the expansion of care, not rolling it back.
  #12  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:54 PM
Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
you should be living on a subsidence diet and government cheese
Government cheese?!? I'm pretty sure the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
  #13  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:57 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,322
What's all this about fish?
  #14  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:37 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by OsageOrange View Post
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm getting sick and tired of all poor people getting treated like shit just because they're poor....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I realize there's this quasi-religious mindset in America where punishment is more important than assistance, but if it costs $100 to subsidize a poor person and $200 to jail them, that doesn't strike me as a "left" vs "right" conflict, just a "good economic sense" vs "bad economic sense" one.


Neither persecuting the underclass, nor saving government funds has anything whatsoever to do with the right-wing anti-welfare agenda.

The sole purpose of all this blather is to give rednecks a sense of superiority so they will vote for the GOP and thus help facilitate the on-going transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very rich.
  #15  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:56 AM
eulalia's Avatar
eulalia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 40°35'7"N/105°5'2"W
Posts: 2,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
Government cheese?!? I'm pretty sure the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
Hey, government cheese isn't really all that bad. When I used to get it 30 years ago it was just a 5 pound block of American cheese, and it really helped stretch the food stamps. It was one of the brighter spots in my life at that point.
  #16  
Old 03-23-2017, 01:37 AM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
Was Wisconsin your government, by any chance? I bet they had the government cheese that would make being on welfare worth it!
  #17  
Old 03-23-2017, 01:45 AM
curlcoat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: S Cal
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I realize there's this quasi-religious mindset in America where punishment is more important than assistance, but if it costs $100 to subsidize a poor person and $200 to jail them, that doesn't strike me as a "left" vs "right" conflict, just a "good economic sense" vs "bad economic sense" one.

Basically, fuck all that "moral hazard" bullshit, what is cheaper in the long run?
Focusing on the problem instead of the symptoms. But then you all wouldn't have the opportunity to feel good about yourselves while throwing away other people's money.

And no, I am not going to reply to the smokescreen that is SSDI is the same thing as welfare.
  #18  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:03 AM
Crazyhorse's Avatar
Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
Focusing on the problem instead of the symptoms. But then you all wouldn't have the opportunity to feel good about yourselves while throwing away other people's money.

And no, I am not going to reply to the smokescreen that is SSDI is the same thing as welfare.
Better be careful. A lot of people who think like you but don't have a disability (other than mental) disagree.

Disability is the New Welfare

Quote:
The $260 billion that the federal government spends annually on disability programs and health care for disabled workers is greater than the cost of food stamps and welfare combined.
  #19  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:09 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
Focusing on the problem instead of the symptoms. But then you all wouldn't have the opportunity to feel good about yourselves while throwing away other people's money.
What is the problem? And isn't it worth addressing the symptoms if the symptoms are things like homelessness and malnutrition, particularly for children?
  #20  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:28 AM
curlcoat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: S Cal
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Better be careful. A lot of people who think like you but don't have a disability (other than mental) disagree.

Disability is the New Welfare
None of that has anything to do with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
What is the problem? And isn't it worth addressing the symptoms if the symptoms are things like homelessness and malnutrition, particularly for children?
Have you ever been poor?

The problem is people who not only don't do anything to get themselves out of poverty, they make choices that pretty much guarantee they stay there. The problem is that all that is done is to hand them things without even trying to teach them to take care of themselves.

Ah, yes, the children. Must throw money at them but approve that they were created into such a life, and do nothing else to get them out of their situation. Other than limit the benefits a non-parent can get.
  #21  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:38 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
Government cheese?!? I'm pretty sure the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
Ah, but to be in glorious France and be getting government cheese! That would be the life -- ça roule, n'est-ce pas? A gift basket from Fauchon is more or less what I had in mind, with matching government wines from some of the better local terroir. Yeah, I'd be OK with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Well, from that link:
Quote:
It’s true that Obama once made a similarly tone-deaf remark about cell phones and insurance. “If you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell phone bill, it may turn out that it’s just they haven’t prioritized health care,” he said to a constituent about health care costs in 2014. But ultimately, the president was arguing for the expansion of care, not rolling it back.
I don't consider it "tone-deaf" at all, I consider it being forced to cater to the private-insurance reality. When you live in a society that treats access to health care as an arbitrary market commodity like a new TV instead of a basic human right, it's not surprising that people stressed for funds are going to take their chances and prioritize their expenditures in ways that don't seem rational in the soft light of comfortable surroundings where meeting all your basic needs is just taken for granted.
  #22  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:55 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Wow, I saw someone claiming that Obama said this. Maybe they were being sarcastic in reply to someone else. But, if not, that's really bad if words by a conservative get put in a liberal's mouth by conservatives.

Anyways, in response to the OP, there are many, many ways that even the poorest people can have access to the Internet. For one thing, there are subsidies if you are poor and have school-aged children. Around here, you could get a fairly lowspeed broadband for $5 a month.

And then there are tons of places with free Wi-fi. And free computer access for people who don't even have computers. And free donated old computers that people can get. And this is in my podunk town.

So, yeah, the Internet is the absolute dumbest thing they could attack poor people over.

------

Unless, of course, you're trolling. Then I should pretend to be upset, so you'll keep on posting these things. I don't think I've ever seen a proper liber-troll that wasn't some strawman.

If you're actually poor, then welcome.
I built computers for a charity where we took donated computers, and rebuilt them, the gave them to non-profit agencies and low-income families. Basically, anyone who gave us a computer less than ten years old, we accepted (we took the ones more than ten years old ans stripped them down as well, but less was usable, and most ended up getting hauled to the recycling center on our dime, so we charged $5 to take computers more than 10 years old. We also took working printers, monitors, etc. It was during the switch to 3-in-ones, and flat screens, so we got lots of perfectly good printers and monitors, and keyboards and mouses.

Anyway, we'd strip them down, and combine parts, and get two working computers for every three, approximately, and usually managed to put a writable CD drive, and DVD-ROM player in each one. This was 2004, so that was pretty good for a free computer. we installed WINXPpro in the all, and equipped each with dial-up and ethernet capability. They all had 512MB RAM and 20-60 MB hard drive.

Our criteria for "low income" was anyone who qualified for anything else: EBT, SSD, SSI, WIC, AFDC, Housing Assistance, anything, including unemployment assistance, and we'd be happy to give you a computer. Non-profits could get up to two. We gave away about 20 a month. We had three computer stores that would also occasionally donate parts to us, but our overhead was pretty much out rent, phone, electricity, and dial-up internet.

We probably gave away twenty computers a month, and got a little money from recycling the part and cases we didn't use.

Very infrequently, we got really good stuff donated, and we'd build something funky, and sell it on consignment through one of the computer shops in town with a note that the profits went to charity. Somebody would get a really nice computer, with the plexiglass sides, and the LED strings and such, for 100 bucks (they were really in on campuses around 2004).

Back then, you could get AOL for about $10/month, and if you wanted broadband and already had cable, it was about $25/month extra, but there were introductory plans where you'd get it free for three months.

We put lots of good programs on the computer. We put Office 2003 and some games on them, and a few other things. We downloaded Java and iTunes for the end user, because they usually were people without much computer experience.

Anyway, we were in S. Indiana, and I know there was another group like us in North Indianapolis, because we swapped parts sometimes.

TL;DR: there are charities that give computers to poor people.
  #23  
Old 03-23-2017, 03:27 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
The problem is people who not only don't do anything to get themselves out of poverty, they make choices that pretty much guarantee they stay there. The problem is that all that is done is to hand them things without even trying to teach them to take care of themselves.
Have you ever had someone from the government show up at your doorstep, tell you they don't approve of your lifestyle and tell you they're going to teach you how to take care of yourself? What would you say to such a person? Would you be willing to listen to them and follow their advice?

Without coercing people at gunpoint or brainwashing them, how do you suggest the government undo the damage that is done to people by circumstances that they do not have the power to change?

You're moralizing the problem, saying the poor can't get themselves out of their situations because no one is "teaching" them the right thing to do. As if a poor person has never heard that kind of advice before. As if telling someone "just stop being poor!" actually fixes anything. If poverty is a moral failing, it is the moral failing of a society that is the richest in everything that any society on Earth has ever been but allows conditions like this to exist because of an arbitrary idea that some people just don't deserve it.
  #24  
Old 03-23-2017, 05:03 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
Focusing on the problem instead of the symptoms.
Why instead of? Ignoring the symptoms that persist while the problem is being addressed surely results in other costs, which undermines the claim of cheapest in the long run.
  #25  
Old 03-23-2017, 08:34 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
I realize there's this quasi-religious mindset in America where punishment is more important than assistance, but if it costs $100 to subsidize a poor person and $200 to jail them, that doesn't strike me as a "left" vs "right" conflict, just a "good economic sense" vs "bad economic sense" one.
That strikes me as an assumption that if I don't give a poor person $100, he is automatically going to break the law, which is kind of demeaning to poor people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
And isn't it worth addressing the symptoms if the symptoms are things like homelessness and malnutrition, particularly for children?
Sure, as long as we address the symptoms effectively. Since malnutrition in children in the US is very rarely because the government doesn't give their mothers enough welfare, and homelessness is mostly due to substance abuse and schizophrenia, neither of which are cured with more money, it isn't going to automatically address the symptoms to hand out more money.

There is no consistently effective treatment for substance abuse, and there is no consistently effective treatment for obesity, especially if it begins in childhood. So if you agree with Bryan Ekers that "fuck this moral hazard bullshit" and focus only on what costs less, then we shouldn't be wasting money on treatments that don't usually work.

Or maybe it is the usual moral outrage clusterfuck where government programs are judged by how much they cost rather than how much they achieve.

Regards,
Shodan
  #26  
Old 03-23-2017, 08:42 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
Have you ever been poor?

The problem is people who not only don't do anything to get themselves out of poverty, they make choices that pretty much guarantee they stay there. The problem is that all that is done is to hand them things without even trying to teach them to take care of themselves.
Great. How do we solve this problem? Perhaps with lifetime limits on welfare, and incentivizing that people get to work? That sounds like a reasonable idea.

Oh wait.

Really though, snark aside, what would you propose? And once you answer that question, follow-up question: why hasn't it been done yet? Is it just because nobody's thought of it?

Quote:
Ah, yes, the children. Must throw money at them but approve that they were created into such a life, and do nothing else to get them out of their situation. Other than limit the benefits a non-parent can get.
But I reiterate, why should we not address the symptoms when the symptoms are homelessness and malnutrition?
  #27  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:36 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That strikes me as an assumption that if I don't give a poor person $100, he is automatically going to break the law, which is kind of demeaning to poor people.
Not all poor people commit crimes, and not all criminals are poor, but most of the people we jail are poor.

But I think you knew that, and you knew that Bryan Ekers doesn't assume what you claim he assumes.

Last edited by Eonwe; 03-23-2017 at 09:37 AM.
  #28  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:37 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,519
Why are Republicans so cruel to the poor?

"Conservatives are more likely than liberals or progressives to believe in what is known as the “just world fallacy,” where people who suffer misfortune are viewed as somehow deserving their fates. Conservatives are also more likely than liberals or progressives not to use systems-level thinking as a means of understanding that individuals do not exist separate and apart from society. Conservatives are also more likely to defend social inequality as “fair and legitimate.”"
  #29  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:55 AM
ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
Have you ever had someone from the government show up at your doorstep, tell you they don't approve of your lifestyle and tell you they're going to teach you how to take care of yourself? What would you say to such a person? Would you be willing to listen to them and follow their advice?
To a certain degree that did happen to me as a child. A few social workers genuinely interested in helping Roma children rather than delivering them as product for the adoption industry did step in and teach me how to use the resources available for poor children who wanted a better life and help me reestablish contact with responsible family members. Education definitely is the key to reducing poverty not just hurling money at the problem in stop-gap measures. Bullet holes require more than Band-aids.
  #30  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:56 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
Not all poor people commit crimes, and not all criminals are poor, but most of the people we jail are poor.

But I think you knew that, and you knew that Bryan Ekers doesn't assume what you claim he assumes.
And most poor people don't commit crimes.

He presented it as $100 in subsidies or $200 in prison costs. Since it isn't either-or, it is a false dilemma.
Quote:
Conservatives are more likely than liberals or progressives to believe in what is known as the “just world fallacy,” where people who suffer misfortune are viewed as somehow deserving their fates.
Believing that actions have consequences is not a fallacy. Believing that poor people have no power over their own actions is.

Regards,
Shodan
  #31  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:59 AM
ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
But I reiterate, why should we not address the symptoms when the symptoms are homelessness and malnutrition?
Because merely addressing the symptoms does little to treat the problem in the long run. It's a placebo for the middle class conscience.
  #32  
Old 03-23-2017, 11:59 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
Government cheese?!? I'm pretty sure the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
Andrew Jackson, in the main foyer of the White House, had a big block of cheese...
  #33  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:06 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
The problem is people who not only don't do anything to get themselves out of poverty, they make choices that pretty much guarantee they stay there.
When I see the majority of Republiopaths making a concerted effort to lift themselves out of their intellectual indigence, I might start taking that argument seriously. But not while he'll is still warm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot View Post
Because merely addressing the symptoms does little to treat the problem in the long run. It's a placebo for the middle class conscience.
That one guy acquired a severe severe case of hypothermia, so we stand here discussing why the fuck did he go out there without a coat, and how can we make sure he stops going out there without a coat, while, in the meantime, he has lapsed into a coma because we have been standing here discussing the root cause of his problem and how to solve it, since causes are much more important than symptoms. But he is dead now, so he will not be going out without a coat. Problem solved.
  #34  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:23 PM
Kimballkid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire View Post
Was Wisconsin your government, by any chance? I bet they had the government cheese that would make being on welfare worth it!
Have you ever had government cheese? It was actually pretty good stuff, no matter what state you were in.
  #35  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:25 PM
curlcoat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: S Cal
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
Have you ever had someone from the government show up at your doorstep, tell you they don't approve of your lifestyle and tell you they're going to teach you how to take care of yourself? What would you say to such a person? Would you be willing to listen to them and follow their advice?
I said nothing along those lines, so I am going to assume that you are attempting to create a strawman.

Have you ever been poor?

Quote:
Without coercing people at gunpoint or brainwashing them, how do you suggest the government undo the damage that is done to people by circumstances that they do not have the power to change?
Why do you think they don't have the power to change their circumstances?

Quote:
You're moralizing the problem, saying the poor can't get themselves out of their situations because no one is "teaching" them the right thing to do. As if a poor person has never heard that kind of advice before. As if telling someone "just stop being poor!" actually fixes anything. If poverty is a moral failing, it is the moral failing of a society that is the richest in everything that any society on Earth has ever been but allows conditions like this to exist because of an arbitrary idea that some people just don't deserve it.
All of that is an assumption of what I believe, and it's wrong, so I don't see any point in responding to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Why instead of? Ignoring the symptoms that persist while the problem is being addressed surely results in other costs, which undermines the claim of cheapest in the long run.
I suppose I say that because the money available is finite, so it would come to having to take at least some of the money that only addresses the symptoms to be used to address the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Great. How do we solve this problem? Perhaps with lifetime limits on welfare, and incentivizing that people get to work? That sounds like a reasonable idea.

Oh wait.

Really though, snark aside, what would you propose? And once you answer that question, follow-up question: why hasn't it been done yet? Is it just because nobody's thought of it?
I have no idea what anyone has thought. And I've listed ideas here before that were considered, at worst, to be inhumane. I don't understand why it's more humane to allow those children you are so concerned about to grow up in the projects than to remove them as newborns and either adopt them out or raise them as orphans. I don't understand how people can look at generations of grinding poverty, drugs, homicide and all that and think that throwing money at those who bring babies into that will help anything.

The reason things like this haven't been done is that people who have never been poor get outraged when what they consider to be rights are proposed to be limited. Like taking a drug test to get welfare. All this about of course there is nothing wrong with someone on welfare having a computer and internet access. Who thought it was OK for EBT to be used on junk food? It seems that far too many people are concerned about what the poor should be given than actually trying to get them out of poverty.

You didn't answer my question.
  #36  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:29 PM
curlcoat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: S Cal
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
When I see the majority of Republiopaths making a concerted effort to lift themselves out of their intellectual indigence, I might start taking that argument seriously. But not while he'll is still warm.



That one guy acquired a severe severe case of hypothermia, so we stand here discussing why the fuck did he go out there without a coat, and how can we make sure he stops going out there without a coat, while, in the meantime, he has lapsed into a coma because we have been standing here discussing the root cause of his problem and how to solve it, since causes are much more important than symptoms. But he is dead now, so he will not be going out without a coat. Problem solved.
I begin to think that the majority of people here are unable to do anything but address the surface of a problem. Are you all really this stupid? Do you really think the issue is this black and white, or is it just an attempt to shout down anything you don't want to have to think about?
  #37  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:51 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
I begin to think that the majority of people here are unable to do anything but address the surface of a problem. Are you all really this stupid? Do you really think the issue is this black and white, or is it just an attempt to shout down anything you don't want to have to think about?
Tu quoque. If you want a meaningful discussion, offer us something more than an empty platitude. Look, that there car is red, we should discuss the very redness of that car at length, with its faded, peeling bumpersticker that says "The problem is people who not only don't do anything to get themselves out of poverty, they make choices that pretty much guarantee they stay there."

What substantial notions do you have to offer?
  #38  
Old 03-23-2017, 01:09 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,529
If it's "my handout is totally different from their handout!" I think we've trodden that one deeply into the ground already.
  #39  
Old 03-23-2017, 01:15 PM
74westy's Avatar
74westy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Posts: 2,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
I don't understand why it's more humane to allow those children you are so concerned about to grow up in the projects than to remove them as newborns and either adopt them out or raise them as orphans. I don't understand how people can look at generations of grinding poverty, drugs, homicide and all that and think that throwing money at those who bring babies into that will help anything.

The reason things like this haven't been done is that people who have never been poor get outraged when what they consider to be rights are proposed to be limited.
This has been tried. In Canada, First Nations children were routinely removed from their homes and sent to residential schools to be assimilated into Canadian culture. While there, they were cut off from their families and physically and sexually abused. They didn't grow up in families and never learned how to raise children which resulted in problems that persist for generations and result in more poverty.

In the wake of these schools courts have ordered compensation and governments and churches involved have officially apologized. A Truth and Reconciliation commission heard from victims and documented their stories.

You are mistaken in your belief that we haven't tried to "remove them as newborns and either adopt them out or raise them as orphans" and failed.
  #40  
Old 03-23-2017, 01:18 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot View Post
Because merely addressing the symptoms does little to treat the problem in the long run. It's a placebo for the middle class conscience.
A voice of reason!
  #41  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:03 PM
gnoitall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Why are Republicans so cruel to the poor?

"Conservatives are more likely than liberals or progressives to believe in what is known as the “just world fallacy,” where people who suffer misfortune are viewed as somehow deserving their fates. Conservatives are also more likely than liberals or progressives not to use systems-level thinking as a means of understanding that individuals do not exist separate and apart from society. Conservatives are also more likely to defend social inequality as “fair and legitimate.”"
Exactly. "You're poor because you're bad and deserve to be poor. Stop being bad and you'll not be poor any more. But we're not going to subsidize your badness."

A century ago, this was driven by certain malignant strains of Calvinism, which went like "If you're a good God-fearing person, God will prosper you. If you don't prosper, it's because you're not good or God-fearing."

Now just peel the religious trappings off and you get what we're describing.
  #42  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:16 PM
JR Brown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
I don't understand why it's more humane to allow those children you are so concerned about to grow up in the projects than to remove them as newborns and either adopt them out or raise them as orphans. I don't understand how people can look at generations of grinding poverty, drugs, homicide and all that and think that throwing money at those who bring babies into that will help anything.
So you don't think poor people should have children? I assume, then, that you ardently support public funding of widely-available, no-cost family planning and contraceptive services. As a bonus, poor young women who have better control over whether and when to have children are more likely to finish their education, obtain better-paying jobs, and move out of poverty, so it's a win-win for everyone.
  #43  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:26 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That strikes me as an assumption that if I don't give a poor person $100, he is automatically going to break the law, which is kind of demeaning to poor people.
Then don't individualize it. Is it plausible that a better social safety net for a neighborhood of poor people will lead to a lower percentage of those poor people resorting to crime to survive? If so, compare the costs/benefits of that safety net vs. the costs/benefits of law enforcement and imprisonment.
  #44  
Old 03-23-2017, 03:15 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlcoat View Post
I suppose I say that because the money available is finite, so it would come to having to take at least some of the money that only addresses the symptoms to be used to address the problem.
Conservatives aren't suggesting we shift the focus on addressing poverty. They want to shut down the programs that are helping poor people now and they want to shut down the programs that will help people avoid becoming poor in the future. And I'll assume they're bitter about how there isn't some way they can reach into the past and take money from poor people back then as well.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 03-23-2017 at 03:17 PM.
  #45  
Old 03-23-2017, 03:23 PM
ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR Brown View Post
So you don't think poor people should have children? I assume, then, that you ardently support public funding of widely-available, no-cost family planning and contraceptive services. As a bonus, poor young women who have better control over whether and when to have children are more likely to finish their education, obtain better-paying jobs, and move out of poverty, so it's a win-win for everyone.
I have been advocating exactly this for years. Along with free abortions (presented in non-judgemental manner as a choice as worthy of respect and honor as giving birth) and large cash incentives for sterilization.
  #46  
Old 03-23-2017, 03:25 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnoitall View Post
A century ago, this was driven by certain malignant strains of Calvinism, which went like "If you're a good God-fearing person, God will prosper you. If you don't prosper, it's because you're not good or God-fearing."
Which, of course, has since been inferred to be reflexive: "If you prosper, it is because you are good/looked upon favorably by god." How convenient.
  #47  
Old 03-23-2017, 04:19 PM
OsageOrange is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 19
Thanks, everyone, for your replies. Curlcoat, you seem to be the very model of a Tea Party Republican, so you are my target audience.
Someone had posted about people living in circumstances that they could not change. Does having most of your town's factories pull up stakes and move to Mexico or China or Thailand qualify? That happened in the next town over, and it affected the job market over at least our whole county. It's all very well to say, "Well, work at whatever part-time fast-food job you can get," but people with even one child end up paying hideous amounts for child care...oh, and child-care places charge overtime if you're late to pick up your children!
Go to college? Great idea. Only, a single credit hour can wipe out even a full-time paycheck, even at a (supposedly) cheaper state university. A loan might help...but then you're even more in debt, and not even guaranteed a job in your major field when you're done! BTW, the nearest trade school is in our nearest large city - tough luck if you don't drive.
If you try to eat healthy, you can get some serious sticker shock at the grocery store, where in my area certain fruits and veggies disappear for the winter. And yes, eggs do go up in January! Best I can do is blanch and freeze when produce is plentiful, but my fridge is a smaller one--from Sears on sale, paid off by eating shit for seven months--so storage is a problem.
Full disclosure here. My profile doesn't show it, but I do work, full time, but I 'float' at my job, so I don't have a real job title...but as I have learned to do more things, I have not received more money for those abilities. So in constant dollars, my income has actually fallen over the years. And there are a lot of folks out here just like me, struggling to get by in a distressed area with a recession piled on! A little help sometimes would be a great thing, but we would rather see the factories come back, and better and cheaper options for an education. And it would definitely be nice to be able to go to the doctor's office without wondering how we're going to pay for it. (More full disclosure: my work does offer insurance, but in the years I have worked there, costs have gone way up, even before the ACA, so now we will have to pay in if we want the same level of care.)
One last thing. The complaints made about the poor who get help are never made about corporate welfare like subsidized mergers, CEO salary write-offs, and the like. And they cost us taxpayers more than SNAP.
  #48  
Old 03-23-2017, 04:22 PM
JR Brown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot View Post
I have been advocating exactly this for years. Along with free abortions (presented in non-judgemental manner as a choice as worthy of respect and honor as giving birth) and large cash incentives for sterilization.
Not with you on the "large cash incentives for sterilization" thing. Unless you are going to use this incentive on everybody, with the aim of decreasing the general country-wide birthrate, it smacks a bit of a certain something.

I think abortions would be subsumed under the family planning proposal.
  #49  
Old 03-23-2017, 04:46 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by OsageOrange View Post
It's all very well to say, "Well, work at whatever part-time fast-food job you can get," but people with even one child end up paying hideous amounts for child care...oh, and child-care places charge overtime if you're late to pick up your children!
No problem - we just increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and you get a raise, if you keep your job. Of course, since labor costs make up a much larger percentage of the overhead of running a child care center, all of that raise will go to child care, but you will still get a raise.

You're welcome.

Regards,
Shodan
  #50  
Old 03-23-2017, 05:10 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,317
so Curlcoat what did you do to get out of poverty, and is it something that 45 million people could do with a near 100% success rate provided they had sufficient moral character.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017