Ask the white, male, upper middle class, somewhat conservative, taxpayer

Great Debates
61

The WMUMCSCT wrote:

Look on the bright side, Scylla. That welfare recipient with the $30,000 pickup truck probably bought it with a loooooooooong-term loan. Most of the welfare money he/she receives in one month, which would otherwise go to improving his/her long-term quality of life, is going into paying off that loan. And long after that $30,000 pickup truck has depreciated to a $2,000 pickup truck, he/she will still be paying off that loan at the same payment level he/she is today.

When you see that bright, shiny, expensive vehicle parked out in front of that dilapidated trailer inhabited by that food-stamp user, don’t get angry. Laugh at them. Laugh uproarously at their idiocy. They’re gonna be absolutely miserable with their decision to buy that new Dodge Ram or Chevy Suburban.

62

Doctordec:

No. Another service that WMUMCSCTs provide society is that they tend to die of hard attacks somewhere around retirement time, thus recirculating their capital.

63

Heart attacks get them too sometimes.

64

Looks like it’s just you and me hashing this out at this point, so I’ll keep it brief.

I’m curious as to what exactly it is. State it in 20 words or less. Is it “WUMCM’s don’t get the respect or admiration they deserve in society” or some variant thereof? If so, then I’ll summarize my point in response: “You have managed to convert opportunity into success. Quit whining about the burdens that that success brings you.” There. 18 words.

The government is merely an extension of society, and the mechanism by which that society is operated, like the handle on a broom. Your payment of taxes allows society to maintain a structure that keeps it working efficiently. As a successful person, you might not need much assistance from the government, just as the bristle in the center of the broom doesn’t get much of the benefit of the leverage the handle provides. But the broom as a whole is strengthened by the presence of the handle, just as society as a whole is benefitted by the support offered by the government. It’s not the most trenchant analogy in the world, but it’ll do.

Welfare is not intended to “relieve” poverty. It is intended to forestall the harshest consequences of poverty until the recipient can return to productive work. Certainly, some people have successfully exploited the system so as to rely on welfare as their permanent source of income, but this perverts the intent of the program and the government is undertaking efforts-- through benefit limits and “workfare”-- to guard against it.

Since we agree on the first point, our quibble is only on just how “tough” the love should be. I suspect that your view of these social programs is based on anecdotes and superficial information. I suspect that you have never personally known someone who was receiving these types of benefits, nor discussed the view of the program from that side.

I think that, if you did so with an open mind, you would find that most welfare recipients do not consider the program a “free ride,” and something they could rely on for a lifetime. All the recipients I have known were ashamed to have to resort to applying for benefits and were attempting, as best they could, to find a job that would allow them to be self-sufficient.

I see the point you’re driving at, but I don’t agree. Allow me to rephrase your equations to what I think is more accurate:

Obstacles + success = laudable
Absence of obstacles + success = not laudable

Those who succeed despite obstacles-- be it discrimination, poverty, lack of educational opportunity, etc.-- are deserving of more respect than someone who has succeeded without overcoming much adversity.

For example, in the quote you supply: “The Cafe was the only bright spot in a dim little circle called Harmonie Park.” I’m assuming from the context that Harmonie Park is an economically depressed area. I’m also assuming (perhaps unreasonably) that the owner of the cafe did not have a ready supply of venture capital or well-to-do investors backing him. I commend him for taking a risk and opening up a cafe in an economically depressed area and succeeding. I would be less impressed if the same businessman was from a wealthy family, and used his trust fund to open up a Starbucks in the mall.

65

Nurlman:

Actually I have some pretty good experience with welfare, and the recipients.

My Grandfather, a NYC policeman bought some land in Suffolk county and built a house to retire in. The state bought much of the surrounding land, built houses, and moved in welfare families. I recall visiting my granfather at those times (in his fenced in enclosure which he built,) and wondering at what natural disaster had hit the neighborhood. I cannot express how disgusting it was. Most everybody was just sitting around drinking beer, and throwing the cans on the lawn.

Within 10 years, most of the houses were uninhabitable, and had to be torn down. Oddly enough, the state sold the land to a developer, and it’s now pretty nice. In case you’re curious, this particular welfare enclave was 99% caucasion. During the early 80s they actually campaigned for extra money so they could have a vactation.

I am also acquainted with some employees of the New Jersey Department of Public Welfare. The impression that I received was that the majority of welfare recipients were abusing the system.

Legitimate recipients did not know how to work the system, like the chronic abusers (because they tended not to stay on welfare very long.) The squeaky wheel gets the oil in these circumstances, and the proud worker who has fallen on hard times and must resort to welfare is typically not as vocal about his rights as the career recipient. As such he is often overlooked. As in nature, the parasites feed best.

I doubt you will find many that would disagree that welfare is horrifically wasteful due to chronic abuse, and needs a serious overhaul.

As for my point in 20 words or less, well, not that I’m granting that that’s a reasonable recquirement, but I thought I came pretty close to it when I said:

"The implication of both these quotes, and one that I feel is reflectd throughout society, and especialy in the news media is that:
Minority + success = good
White male + success = bad

If you’ll grant me the point to see what I’m driving at, my “demagoguery” can probably be boiled down to an objection to this attitude."
You responded:

"Obstacles + success = laudable
Absence of obstacles + success = not laudable

Those who succeed despite obstacles-- be it discrimination, poverty, lack of educational opportunity, etc.-- are deserving of more respect than someone who has succeeded without overcoming much adversity. "

I would agree with your statement, but I don’t think the translation holds.

The quotes, and the news reports on tv do not say “obstacles” and “lack of obstacles”
They say “minorites” and “white people.”

If A=B, and B=C, then A=C still holds as a logical argument, then according to your post:
White people = no obstacles =not laudable

Minorities = obstacles = laudable.

If a business is minority owned, if it survived hardship, these do not entitle it to any special treatment over one that isn’t.

A widget built by a repressed minority in danger of going out of business is not automatically a better widget than one built by a rich racist bigot.

I would imagine that if yourife depended on the widget, you would buy the one that was better, regardless of the politics of the maker.

we can take your reformulation a step further.

White = absence of obstacles

Minority = obstacles

In this day and age this is no longer necessarily true.

66

Ah. We seem to have finally distilled this down to its essence.

I will grant you that, as formulated, both those expressions are facially untrue. There are many successful minorities that emerged from well-to-do families and who never conquered any significant obstacles. And there are whites who have succeeded despite overwhelming obstacles. It is not appropriate to simply asume that minority = obstacles.

However, it is equally inappropriate to turn a blind eye to the realities of our society. High-school and college graduation rates for minorities significantly lag-- for reasons that don’t particularly matter here-- behind whites. Thus, there are proportionately fewer minorities in the business world equipped with the basic tools to succeed than there are whites. There is indisputably some racial prejudice against minorities in the business world. We can argue about just how much, but it inarguably exists. These two factors alone are obstacles that all successful minorities must overcome, but that do not befall whites. Certainly, it is important to view the individual merits of any particular case, but you must concede that, in general, minorities generally face obstacles that whites do not.

I agree with you that minority achievement should not be universally celebrated, nor should all achievements by whites be universally ignored. I don’t see that happening, however. If your post above, you equated the praise for the minority owner of a small business with the criticism of mostly white-owned large corporations. I submit to you that much of the difference in tone of the comments related more to the size disparity than to the character of the ownership. I frequently see positive media reports about successful small businessmen of every race, and negative media reports of large corporations regardless of ownership-- in the last month, I have read pieces in mainstream papers criticising the pervasive reach of Oprah’s media corporation and the monopolistic practices of BET, the all-black television network.

In sum, I contend that the gripe you aired is more appropriately directed to the fact that the media is prone to celebrate the virtue of the small business-- of any race-- and to deride the power of large businesses, regardless of its racial makeup. Your beef is with the media’s constant championing of the underdog.

67

And Underdog was a junkie, too. (No, really! He got his powers by popping “Underdog Super Energy Pills”. And don’t even get me started on Roger Ramjet.)

68

Nurlman sure blacks face problems in buisnesses that whites do not but whites face problems that blacks do not. Discriminating based on race is never the answer.

Women however face alot more predjustice than blacks. Does this mean that women’s buisnesses should be aired more? No, actual news should be reported, any praise should be accidental.

69

Nurlman:

“High-school and college graduation rates for minorities significantly lag-- for reasons that don’t particularly matter here-- behind whites.”

I think it does matter, not that it’s entirely true. I would take a wag and say that among orientals high-school and graduation rates are higher.

Does this mean that orientals are smartest, whites, second, and blacks last?

I don’t think so. I think it’s a problem of poverty and culture.

A black middle class college graduate, probably didn’t have to overcome a lot of overt discrmination (that would effect his grades anyway.) Yet, he would have an easier time getting and keeping a good job, based on the fact that the color of his skin denotes a minority.

In this particular case, he would be riding to success on the coattails of perceived discrimation when he has suffered none. Nothing changes for the poor urban black who never had the opportunity to go to a decent high school or college and advance to the point where he could take advantages of the the programs meant to further black leadership in the business world.

There is nothing wrong with applying generalities when speaking about large samples of the public.

When you take the general “blacks have been discriminated against and should be helped,” and apply it specifically “I am black, therefore I deserve special treatment,” you create further inequalities.

It shouldn’t read

White=privileged

black=obstacles

It should read:

Poverty=obstacles

wealth=privilege

70

Asmodean:

I realize this is off the topic of the OP but I just wanted to refute the opinion that women face more discrimination in general then blacks. I’m sure that sex discrimination is a problem in our society but I don’t think it is as serious as racial discrimination. Perhaps you could direct some information relative to sex discrimination under the topic of “Disturbed about Feminism” which was started a few weeks ago, and which somewhat addresses this issue.

Grim Beaker

71

Asmodean:

I realize this is off the topic of the OP but I just wanted to refute the opinion that women face more discrimination in general then blacks. I’m sure that sex discrimination is a problem in our society but I don’t think it is as serious as racial discrimination. Perhaps you could direct some information relative to sex discrimination under the topic of “Disturbed about Feminism” which was started a few weeks ago, and which somewhat addresses this issue.

Grim Beaker

72

well all i meant was that women get paid less than men for equal jobs. But then so do tall people.(well they get more) Does that mean we should discriminate against tall people?

grim i was trying to get the point across that discrimination in general doesent give the goverment the right to discriminate in general. :slight_smile:

73

Let me just jump in with a thing or two, although I recognize it’s a little late in the game.

Nurlman:

“Your taxes are a payment to the government for the right to live in this society.”

That’s awful nice of the government, wouldn’t you say? To allow me to live in this society? Gee.
Nurlman has accused Scylla of paternalism, and of being judgemental. He’s also indicated that it’s the government’s role to be paternalistic, to take care of its citizens. And as a result, the government has the right to judge its citizens.
Not you, Scylla. You’re supposed to sit back and let the government judge you and anyone you see buying lobsters on food stamps. So just abdicate your right to think and relax. As Nurlman said, vote once a year and shut up. Play with your guns, which the government has allowed you to have; your computer, which the government has allowed you to have; your wife, which the government has allowed you to have.
Ever watch the Jerry Springer Show? You hear one thing, again and again, whenever the audience boos someone who’s cheated on their wife or their husband with their best friend (or whatever):
“You don’t know me. You don’t know what it’s like to be me. You can’t judge me.”
You know who else said this? Good old Charlie Manson.
That’s a good way to go. We should all just sit back and not say anything because we don’t know what it’s like to be in anyone else’s shoes. I mean, since I don’t know what Charlie Manson went through as a kid, since I’ve never been inside his skin, I can’t get upset by anything he did.
Oh, and Scylla? When you come home one night to discover your daughter has played with your guns, don’t say anything. You don’t know what’s it like to be her. You can’t judge her. That’s being paternalistic. You don’t have the right.
Call the government. Invite the government to your house. Ask the government to speak to your daughter.
Now I’m guilty of grossly oversimplifying things here. I’ve been very snide and smug and unfair in this post. I know that.
But you can’t judge me. You don’t know me.
Just copy it and forward it to the government. They’ll take care of it.