No! Demagoguery at its finest.
(underline mine)
Let me try again. The point is the standard of living. the medicare inclusion comment was made in reply to some one who postulated the “income” of the welfare recipient thusly : Cash benefit = x dollars, Food stamps = y dollars, utlities help= z dollars, ** medicare = a dollars **, total monthly income: x+y+z+a.
And I pointed out that the medicare was a benefit, NOT income, and therefore shouldn’t be used to show how much the person was recieving. It may have been an accurate portrayal of how much that person COST us (except of course they failed to include the cost of administering the programs involved), but it certainly wasn’t accurate in terms of what the person’s monthly income is. the person who has great quantities of medical costs has, in essence, roughly the same standard of living as the person who doesn’t have great quantities of medical costs.
Yes, of course, if you look at my prior posts, I am greatly aware of the costs of medical insuraance etc.
But this debate is centered around concepts such as "should we make those who earn more, pay taxes to the welfare system. which would allow those who don’t earn anything (or earn very little) to be brought up to whatever minimum standard of living we’re aiming for. And, if we DO have such a system, should that allow those paying IN the system the right to judge various aspects of the helped groups’ behavior more harshly (in that we generally don’t think we should “judge” if our neighbor who ISN’T on welfare, choses to buy fancy shoes for their kid).
got it?
As I see it, if a society has the means to ensure a reasonable standard of living for its members, it should do so. Inequality has never been beneficial to a society.
Personally I find it very distasteful that someone would value his excess income so much that he’d rather have people living in poverty than part with it.
>> Inequality has never been beneficial to a society
Oh? Is that a fact? The way I see it, all experiments at “equality” have shown to be rather unsuccessful. The way I see it it is inequality that makes people get out of bed in the morning and go to work. If you assure everybody the same standard of living regardless of what they do, who is going to go to their job when they can stay home and play Nintendo? Even the way things are you have a fair amount of people who decide a job is not worth their effort. We do not need to encourage that. If you want to support a few lazy people, you are very free to do it, but I do not see why others should be forced to do the same.
For what seems like the hundredth time, I must point out to someone that wealth is not a zero-sum game. I find it distasteful that someone would value freedom so little that he’d feel justified in dictating how much of my freely earned money I am allowed to keep for myself.
Freedom with respect to economic affairs is correlated far more strongly with success than enforced equality.
I’m glad the “father of the baby” is making support payments, but let’s take a step back. Why did your sister get pregnant if she wasn’t prepared to take care of a child?
Sailor,
Assuming that most people are roughly equally capable (“the average person”), you’d certainly expect roughly equal outcomes as well.
I’m not saying we must limit the more capable ones, I just don’t want anyone to fall too low (ie. without food, shelter, education or health services).
Certainly you can see the benefits in not having an underclass.
waterj2,
That’s not really relevant. Welfare was instituted because people needed help, and they still do.
The money for that help has to come from somewhere, and taxes are usually the way governments get their funding.
If people could always get out of the poverty trap on their own, they would do so.
Ah yes, we must all live in the libertarian utopia. :rolleyes:
I’m not talking about enforcing an equal outcome, but merely a starting point.
The more I think about it, the more I think the government should not be involved in dispensing charity. It leads to too many situations of abuse, as well as inspiring a mentality of dependency. I wonder if a lot of young women wouldn’t think twice about allowing undependable boyfriends to impregnate them if they knew that they would be on their own as far as supporting the children…
That said, I was temporarily out of work a couple of years ago. I was moved to tears by the generosity of some of the people in my parish who would show up at church with bags of food for me. I think churches and non-governmental organizations are the proper administrators of charity. They seem less likely to build up huge beuracracies that spend more money feeding themselves than feeding the poor, and also more inclined to educate people, help them find jobs, and finally cut them off when they demonstrate that they want to live off of the largesse of others rather than help themselves.
My church collects food for the poor, and I periodically donate a nice-sized bagful. Additionally, if my pastor were to tell the congregation that there was a family in need of help, father lost his job/died/someone was ill and couldn’t cover the hospital bills,things of this nature, I wouldn’t hesitate to open my purse to help out. I have also made donations of cash, clothing, Christmastime donations of toys for children, to charitable organizations, and I’m happy to know I’ve helped someone in need.
But when it comes to having money deducted from my paycheck every week, and knowing that a portion of that money is going to support some woman who pops out a baby every couple of years in order to avoid having to get a job because the youngest is over a certain age, or simply doesn’t have the moral fiber to insist that her current bed partner put a rubber sheath over his dick, or, keep her legs crossed for crying out loud, I start to have problems with that. I have absolutely no problems helping someone who hit a rough stretch of road and needs some help, or is trying to get an education so that they will be able to support themselves and their families. I regard the last as a wise investment.
But too many people make a lifestyle out of it, and I think the way welfare programs in this country encourage dependency rather than giving people a leg up so that they can learn to help themselves.
BTW, I generally prefer giving “stuff” such as food or clothing to giving cash, for reasons that a moment’s thought will make obvious.
**
Perhaps people who are only making 1,200 a month should avoid having a family.
Marc
Hello Edwardina…I stand for you and vigorously applaud! And don’t apologize for being outraged at the insensitivity of others. It is outrageous but it’s a fact that we must face. Just as we are entitled as Americans to be as we are the greedy and constantly envious are entitled to theirs. Somehow I think we’re just a little bit happier myself. We don’t spend nearly as much time bawling about how the lazy and undeserving are ruining our lives.
Needs2know
It is not a good idea to have a lot of people starving to death. Surely having such desperate people creates a danger that they will take desperate actions. There is already a safety net in place and many programs to help the poor.
there can’t be equality without a total redistribution of wealth. For those of us who are non-libertarrians, a safety net seems fair. Taxing the bajeezus out of anyone who manages to earn a decent living is counterproductive. IT diminishes the incentive to work hard.
So if I want to keep the money I earn, send my kids to a good school, pay 37% income tax, and put money away for retirement so that I am not a burden to society, I am a rogue?
Might I suggest that those who do not want to see others living in poverty and who have excess wealth can surely give it away. This is called charity. You deciding how to spend my money that you perceive as excess is basically theft.
“those without money deciding how to spend the money of those that do have it on themselves.”
On the nike shoes thing…
Someone on the Taking Children Seriously list said that if a poor parent is unable or unwilling to provide their child with Nike shoes th at the kid wants (at one hundred dollars a pop), then that parent is immoral…um…okay…
If anyone wants to see the quote, I can post it. That pissed me off.
Mr. Zambezi,
I know, and it’s enough for me. It could work better though (not that the Finnish system is perfect either :)).
If you can’t live comfortably because of taxes, then there’s obviously something wrong with them.
But anyway, it’s just my opinion. I could live even with a libertarian society, if it came to that.
I don’t think charity can ever replace welfare.
As for the thieving bit, I say tough luck, you’d enforce your ideal system on me just as much if you had the chance.
Ah, but if you had the perfection of charity, then you wouldn’t have to pay taxes. Solves everybody’s problems 
That’s an interesting position Needs, considering the OP expressed just the sentiment you’re denying. And I’ve seen far more of these threads berating us free-market capitalists for “not doing enough” than I have from us capitalists bitching about being over-taxed to pay for lavish welfare lifestyles. Now climb down off your fucking pedestal and quit patting yourself on the back for “caring” more than you think the rest of us do.
Try this study for some numbers on welfare earnings.
The study examines the combined value of benefits–including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, Medicaid, and others–for a typical welfare recipient in each of the 50 states. The value of those tax-free benefits is then compared with the amount of take-home income a worker would have left after paying taxes on an equivalent pretax income.
Hourly Wage Equivalent of Welfare
[ul]
[li] Hawaii $17.50[/li][li] Alaska 15.48[/li][li] Massachusetts 14.66[/li][li] Connecticut 14.23[/li][li] Washington, D.C. 13.99[/li][li] New York 13.13[/li][li] New Jersey 12.74[/li][li] Rhode Island 12.55[/li][li] California 11.59[/li][li] Virginia 11.11[/li][li] Maryland 10.96[/li][li] New Hampshire 10.96[/li][li]Maine 10.38[/li][li]Delaware 10.34[/li][li]Colorado 10.05[/li][li]Vermont 10.05[/li][li]Minnesota 10.00[/li][li]Washington 9.95[/li][li]Nevada 9.71Utah 9.57[/li][li]Michigan 9.47[/li][li]Pennsylvania 9.47[/li][li]Illinois 9.33[/li][li]Wisconsin 9.33[/li][li]Oregon 9.23[/li][li]Wyoming 9.18[/li][li]Indiana 9.13[/li][li]Iowa 9.13[/li][li]New Mexico 8.94[/li][li]Florida 8.75[/li][li]Idaho 8.65[/li][li]Oklahoma 8.51[/li][li]Kansas 8.46[/li][li]North Dakota 8.46[/li][li]Georgia 8.37[/li][li]Ohio 8.37[/li][li]South Dakota 8.32[/li][li]Louisiana 8.17[/li][li]Kentucky 8.08[/li][li]North Carolina 8.08[/li][li]Montana 7.84[/li][li]South Carolina 7.79[/li][li]Nebraska 7.64[/li][li]Texas 7.31[/li][li]West Virginia 7.31[/li][li]Missouri 7.16[/li][li]Arizona 6.78[/li][li]Tennessee 6.59[/li][li]Arkansas 6.35[/li][li]Alabama 6.25[/li][li]Mississippi 5.53[/li][/ul]
Some additional conclusions:
[ul]
[li]In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour job–or more than two and a half times the minimum wage.[/li][li]In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job.[/li][li]Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit.[/li][li]In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a computer programmer.[/li][/ul]
Something else you might find interesting about so-called poverty levels. In constant 1980 dollars, over 2/3 thirds of U.S. families were below today’s government set poverty level. Additionally, the poorest families in America still make more money than over 70% of the World’s population. It’s also been estimated that since Johnson’s Great Society, the U.S. has spent more that six trillion dollars on government sponsored welfare, enough to buy all business and infrastructure in the United States. Hell, the total current value of the every share of stock in all markets in the U.S. is only about 13 trillion dollars. I’d say we have enough welfare. Enough to prove the odd paradox that you can’t eliminate poverty by throwing money at it.
Jaako said
My ideal system calls for more personal freedom and responsibility. If it is possible to “force” freedom on someone, then that person must be a willing slave.
" he who is willing to trade his liberties for a little personal safety deserves neither." Ben Franklin (paraphrased)
Look, I agree with a certain level of taxation and social aid. I think we may argue over a matter of degrees. NAd what exactly is too igh a tax rate? How much money is too much? Who has the right to decide?
A couple of years ago when I last read the numbers, in Ontario a single mother of two living on welfare could maintain a better lifestyle than a similar person earning over $45,000 per year. This is due to free childcare, free medical benefits (especially valuable with kids - braces, prescriptions, eyeglasses, you name it), discount housing, and a whole laundry basket of other free services. This does not include the other free services available to get that person back in the job market such as free career counselling, free education, free resume writing services, etc. It also doesn’t include those who are willing to double-dip and take advantage of the many private charities as well.
You’d think that our welfare recipients would be happy as clams then, right? Surely if you guys in the U.S. don’t give enough to poor people, then we in Canada do? Well, guess again. There is just as much unrest and dissatisfaction with how much the government provides here than there is in the U.S.
I knew a girl a few years ago who was on Welfare. She had two children, and was frantically trying to get pregnant with a third. Why? because with two children the heartless government still expects you to work for a living, but with three they’ll just consider you a full-time mom and you no longer had to look for work. As HER mother did all the raising of the kids anyway, this girl essentially got a free ride by having another (which she eventually managed to do).
I grew up in a poor family, surrounded by welfare recipients. My mother was too proud to accept handouts, so she worked her ass off. They always had more money than we did, but we eventually moved up and out, and most of them are still there. Welfare is destructive to the human spirit and creates a permanent underclass. It may be necessary at some level, but it should be a last resort and we should take every step possible to avoid having to resort to it. We should make every effort to get the people who are on it OFF of it, which is why I support the free education, career counselling, and other services designed to give Welfare recipients a hand up rather than a handout.
This just in from the Supreme Court (and, for the mods, this is noncopyrighted material under the Federal Work Product doctrine):
Now why would Congress try to make it harder for people on welfare to challenge the constitutionality of welfare law?
Interesting! By the way, it was a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy breaking from the conservative-five to join the other 4 or more liberal justices.
If one makes the assumption that there is a winner to social contest, then if follows that there is a loser. To insure that this loser does not spoil the victory it is necessary to silence them. The low-cost front line attack of silencing the poor is discredit, blame, and shame.
Note: It is never an economic option to kill the poor and that is proof one does not understand the game. Contest theory dictates that the victor makes the victim first sacrifice their generational progress, then admit defeat, then beg through class distinction. That is real victory, expressed by how sweetly the victor can watch them degenerate (nobility). Funding services or offering sympathy has nothing to do with it. In fact, the whole point was to always get people to eat from their hand and kiss the other side afterwards, so this works for the victor, and is merely opposed by the victor class as a contest bluff (obviously). Everybody knows that contests have bluffs, right?
The real prize the victor cannot afford to lose is the hardwon belief system they force all to share, which is that they deserve the poor’s hard labor and, modernly, also deserve complete control of a publicly printed and owned money supply. This is necessary to the victor, who dearly knows that elitism belongs to the third-world and is economically a disaster and infeasible and a complete waste and mismanagement of human resources. That is why they call it victory, because it not only beat the odds, but human nature and common sense itself. The ultimate victory was always surviving self-defeat.