What sort of linguistic and/or semantic gymnastics do you have to perform allow you to accept that SSDI is NOT a form of a welfare payment FFS?
Oh, that’s right! If you are getting X payment it’s not welfare. It’s only those other scum-sucking bottom-feeders…y’know, the ones who had the audacity to have a KID.
Is it your understanding that most people of your political bent agree with you on this point?
Conservatives of the SDMB? Do you agree?
Right, just like HAART isn’t going to make you HIV Negative in the long run. All it does is keep people from dying of AIDS for a few decades, as well as making it a lot harder to transmit the disease to others. We should abandon it and find better methods.
Okay, I guess that makes some sense? Only problem is, the symptoms still need to be addressed. We’re still looking at things like homelessness.
Bolding mine. I think I get it. :eek:
This is a phenomenally bad example. Testing programs like this don’t actually help anyone, and cost more than they save. What is achieved by doing this, exactly? Addicts are pushed into even more intense poverty?
Turns out getting people out of poverty without seriously limiting their freedoms is a pretty hard thing to do. Particularly in rural areas where there are few high-paying jobs, and high unemployment. It’s not some trivial problem we can just snap our fingers and solve. But in the meanwhile, we still have to deal with the facts of the situation.
It’s not actually hard to give everyone a living-wage. The hard bit is convincing the stupid masses that it is in the BEST INTERESTS of everyone to do so.
It is kind of hard actually. What do YOU consider a living wage? What if someone thinks the living wage should be more or less? What should a person be able to get with this living wage? Does having children increase your living wage? Who decides what the final living wage should be? Who decides what a person should be able to get with their living wage?
The problem is that many people on welfare are quiet about it so what we see is not the people participating in this thread but rather the welfare receipients that are buying cars they can’t afford then complaining they can’t make the payments “because they’re on welfare”, eating out in expensive restaurants then wanting someone to pay for their food “because they’re on welfare”. Maybe that’s only 5% of the people receiving welfare but when those are the only people you know are receiving welfare it skews the perception.
Yeah, that’s strange. It’s almost as if people read about a few people doing something bad, and then just assuming the rest of that class of people are ALSO doing something bad. There should be a word for that.
What would be cheaper would be to let the market set wages. More efficient as well, and therefore better in the long run and for more people.
Regards,
Shodan
So for those who are not in this group, say have a disability and no rich husband to take care of them. What’s your solution? Better they should die and reduce the surplus population?
“[SSDI] has become a de facto welfare program for people without a lot of education or job skills.” - Chana Joffe-Walt, National Public Radio
Peak self-righteousness of course.
It’s not exactly a new thing - waaaay back when, in the Middle Ages when the Catholic church and various feodal lords were bound to commit regular acts of charity ; they kept official lists of “good/deserving” poor to distribute alms, food and clothes to. Strangers, notoriously dodgy christians, people of ill repute, everybody “weird” and so forth could sit on it and rotate.
It was well understood then that the point of Christian charity wasn’t some sort of social plan or fixing the ills of society (which were numerous, acknowledged, and justified - God wills it, right ? Everybody in their place, a place for everyone etc…) - it was to save the individual soul of the person doing the charity. Of course, getting a patron/client relationship out of the deal was wholly coincidental 
Crack a book on turn of the century (i.e. pre-regulation) economics, then come back to us with your findings on that gloriously free and better epoch of slumlords, robber barons and Pinkerton strike breakers.
When come back, bring pie.
This thread is as good a place as any I guess.
I’m giving up my Straight Dope membership and will no longer read the board. I keep getting sucked into the childishness, stupidity and rigid adherence to belief no matter what, and I really no longer have time for that bullshit.
So farewell. I hope I don’t live long enough for you all to take everything from the middle class.
I assume you mean 1900. Did you know that wages in 1903 were 16% higher than the average of 1890-99?
Cite.
Don’t have any pie - sorry.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t let the door hit you where the Good Lord took a meat axe to what was originally a single muscle.
We don’t have a door. The temptation to lock the dummies out instead of trying to larn’ 'em is just too powerful, so we can’t have nice things.
I’m telling you, the missionary life is HARD. 
Translation: “I got nuthin’, they know I got nuthin’, and I can’t admit they’re right so I’ll storm off in a huff.”
I get the feeling that it is more like “assistance allows some people to abuse the system, so the system is fucked up and we should scrap it in order to prevent anyone from abusing it.”
I was being sarcastic, but yes, I also agree with your feeling.
I’ve posted this before, so I’ll just link to it: The “game theory” explanation of liberal vs. conservative attitudes towards welfare