Corporate Welfare and Social Welfare.
August 1, 2002 8:28 AM Subscribe
Corporate Welfare and Social Welfare. Which is the most egregious? A bill in Congress to address welfare got comments from GWB during a political fund raiser in SC. Does this statement make any sense to you?
"In the way they're kind of writing it right now out of the Senate Finance Committee, some people could spend their entire five years on welfare - there's a five-year work requirement - going to college. Now, that's not my view of helping people become independent, and it's certainly not my view of understanding the importance of work and helping people achieve the dignity necessary so they can live a free life, free from government control." -GWB-
I always thought education WAS the key to escaping poverty but the "education President" obviously disagrees. I'd really appreciate your comments on the bill and this article.
Yeah, this is all over the place today. And it was taken on in Salon.com today as well. I think it is profoundly disturbing. Getting a further education, whether it is academic or professional trade based, is THE ticket to a better life for these people. It boggles the mind how one can be described as compassionately conservative yet pursue policies of this nature. This from a man who was accepted at institutes due to his legacy, did not work hard while there.....
posted by pjgulliver at 8:40 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 8:40 AM on August 1, 2002
Sad, since his wife is a former teacher and librarian.
However, I'd say it's to be expected. Look at the people who vote. The largest block are senior citizens, with the amount gradually dropping by age. The results are similar for income with those who are most likely to need public assistance being the least likely to vote.
With results like that it's no surprise the president isn't taking their needs into consideration. He doesn't have to, they won't hurt his career by voting him out of office. He has to pander to the people who vote, and they seem to be happiest when welfare is cut, regardless of what happens to the people who depended on it.
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:55 AM on August 1, 2002
However, I'd say it's to be expected. Look at the people who vote. The largest block are senior citizens, with the amount gradually dropping by age. The results are similar for income with those who are most likely to need public assistance being the least likely to vote.
With results like that it's no surprise the president isn't taking their needs into consideration. He doesn't have to, they won't hurt his career by voting him out of office. He has to pander to the people who vote, and they seem to be happiest when welfare is cut, regardless of what happens to the people who depended on it.
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:55 AM on August 1, 2002
"Yes, Mr. Social Worker, I need that welfare money to take 5 years of underwater basketweaving at my local community college." The whole theoretical point of welfare is to get people working and back on their feet rather than sitting on the dole. Paying people to go to college doesn't necessarily teach them responsibility or job skills, or anything like that.
I am opposed to all welfare, of course.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:58 AM on August 1, 2002
I am opposed to all welfare, of course.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:58 AM on August 1, 2002
While I agree GWB's quote is utterly ridiculous, I do have to say this: When I was younger and had to work full-time to pay for going to college full-time, it used to irk the hell out of me to see welfare moms getting their college and living expenses handed to them for nothing.
Maybe I'm just being petty, but why can't people on welfare work at least part-time while going to school?
posted by airgirl at 9:02 AM on August 1, 2002
Maybe I'm just being petty, but why can't people on welfare work at least part-time while going to school?
posted by airgirl at 9:02 AM on August 1, 2002
I agree that welfare recipients who attend university should have a work requirement (part time.) This is, in fact, how most university financial aid packages currently work, through work-study and the like. But Bush isn't talking about part time work, or ways to get people through school while working. Instead, he's saying he doesn't view college (or trade school) as an important human development activity. He's equating attending university to a leisure activity that should not be subsidized by the tax payers. Well, a tertiary education IS hard work and a vital means to improving ones economic situation (as well as the situation of one's children..people who attend a tertiary educational program are far more likely to have children who do the same, which lets the next generation escape the poverty incountered by the first.)
I mean, I bet there was never ever a conversation in the Bush household about whether Jenna and Barbara would attend university.
posted by pjgulliver at 9:09 AM on August 1, 2002
I mean, I bet there was never ever a conversation in the Bush household about whether Jenna and Barbara would attend university.
posted by pjgulliver at 9:09 AM on August 1, 2002
airgirl: When I was younger and had to work full-time to pay for going to college full-time, it used to irk the hell out of me to see welfare moms getting their college and living expenses handed to them for nothing. (emphasis mine)
Isn't taking care of children considered work?
posted by tittergrrl at 9:10 AM on August 1, 2002
Isn't taking care of children considered work?
posted by tittergrrl at 9:10 AM on August 1, 2002
Care to link to an institution offering courses in underwater basketweaving, insomnyuk?
posted by muckster at 9:10 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by muckster at 9:10 AM on August 1, 2002
Maybe I'm just being petty, but why can't people on welfare work at least part-time while going to school?
I'm wondering the same thing. Does anyone know details of the plan? At my school (Columbia), we had "work-study", whereby students on finanicial aid were obligated to work X hours per week on campus jobs. It was part of the price you paid for need-blind admissions.
posted by mkultra at 9:12 AM on August 1, 2002
I'm wondering the same thing. Does anyone know details of the plan? At my school (Columbia), we had "work-study", whereby students on finanicial aid were obligated to work X hours per week on campus jobs. It was part of the price you paid for need-blind admissions.
posted by mkultra at 9:12 AM on August 1, 2002
As far as the article goes, I wish it had been a little less bash-Bush-the-poor-student. It runs the risk of turning this into one of those "dumbest things ever said by elected officials" statements that makes light-hearted toilet reading when compiled and published.
This is more important than that. Really, the message is: The World Needs Ditchdiggers, Too. 5 years of college is 5 years of undug ditches. And I think that's where we can safely lop the "compassionate" nonsense off of his actual philosophy.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:14 AM on August 1, 2002
This is more important than that. Really, the message is: The World Needs Ditchdiggers, Too. 5 years of college is 5 years of undug ditches. And I think that's where we can safely lop the "compassionate" nonsense off of his actual philosophy.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:14 AM on August 1, 2002
Even in the pre-welfare reform days when there were no time limits and college could satisfy work-and-training requirements such as there were, the proportion of welfare recipients who got their bachelors degrees while receiving benefits and entered professions was miniscule. They are a very vocal minority (cf. Ariel Gore and such like poverty pimps), but their loudness cannot disguise their statistical insignificance.
Nothing that we do in welfare policy will make much of a difference unless we take on the basic problem: single women having children they have no possible way of supporting with men who are highly unlikely to be able to contribute to their upbringing.
This bad conduct, which none of us would ever condone if committed by our family or friends, yet which now passes as something close to a social norm in certain quarters, is what must be addressed, and it isn't addressed by giving generous benefits (like free income together with the free or virtually free tuition) to the very same malefactors, especially since there is no evidence that it produces meaningful results across the population.
My view is that welfare should provide some minimum substinence to the innocent victims (these women's children) while cleary and visibly penalizing the women themselves for their irresponsible conduct, until the social norms begin to reverse towards their proper orientation.
posted by MattD at 9:14 AM on August 1, 2002
Nothing that we do in welfare policy will make much of a difference unless we take on the basic problem: single women having children they have no possible way of supporting with men who are highly unlikely to be able to contribute to their upbringing.
This bad conduct, which none of us would ever condone if committed by our family or friends, yet which now passes as something close to a social norm in certain quarters, is what must be addressed, and it isn't addressed by giving generous benefits (like free income together with the free or virtually free tuition) to the very same malefactors, especially since there is no evidence that it produces meaningful results across the population.
My view is that welfare should provide some minimum substinence to the innocent victims (these women's children) while cleary and visibly penalizing the women themselves for their irresponsible conduct, until the social norms begin to reverse towards their proper orientation.
posted by MattD at 9:14 AM on August 1, 2002
I'm guessing that Mr. Bush didn't learn that much in college, judging from the above quote. Perhaps, from his experience, college is a waste. I'll bet that all that he has acheived could have been done without the aid of higher education.
You don't have to go to college to live a life free from government control. I suppose that there is some argument to the idea that working at McDonald's and getting foodstamps will eliminate government interference in your life.
posted by goneill at 9:19 AM on August 1, 2002
You don't have to go to college to live a life free from government control. I suppose that there is some argument to the idea that working at McDonald's and getting foodstamps will eliminate government interference in your life.
posted by goneill at 9:19 AM on August 1, 2002
muckster: I was using it as a joke, kind of the way most colleges do.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:20 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 9:20 AM on August 1, 2002
goneill: I'm guessing that Mr. Bush didn't learn that much in college, judging from the above quote. Perhaps, from his experience, college is a waste.
And it still doesn't stop him and his people from touting his MBA, which I guess he just found at the bottom of a box of cracker jacks along with a Rangers rub-on tattoo.
posted by tittergrrl at 9:22 AM on August 1, 2002
And it still doesn't stop him and his people from touting his MBA, which I guess he just found at the bottom of a box of cracker jacks along with a Rangers rub-on tattoo.
posted by tittergrrl at 9:22 AM on August 1, 2002
Isn't taking care of children considered work?
Why should my money go to support someone stupid enough to get pregnant without the financial backing AND pay for their college? Oh I guess they aren't stupid. They know full well if they get pregnant there will be a nice welfare check waiting for them. I guess you could call it government subsidized pregnancy. Where are you population control advocates now?
posted by insomnyuk at 9:22 AM on August 1, 2002
Why should my money go to support someone stupid enough to get pregnant without the financial backing AND pay for their college? Oh I guess they aren't stupid. They know full well if they get pregnant there will be a nice welfare check waiting for them. I guess you could call it government subsidized pregnancy. Where are you population control advocates now?
posted by insomnyuk at 9:22 AM on August 1, 2002
airgirl,
Did it irk you, also, to see rich kids who spent their days on nearly anything but learning "getting their college and living expenses handed to them for nothing?" via their parents? 'Cause that used to bug me.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:24 AM on August 1, 2002
Did it irk you, also, to see rich kids who spent their days on nearly anything but learning "getting their college and living expenses handed to them for nothing?" via their parents? 'Cause that used to bug me.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:24 AM on August 1, 2002
Well, let's use a real example insomnyuk. Would you be upset if the recpient was at the community college attending a skill-based course load, like, say, electric repair, basic accounting, basic computer skills, english fluency, etc? Wouldn't all of those course liken the chance that the welfare recpient will eventually be able to find a job that pays enough that said person (and their children) will be able to move off welfare and support themselves?
posted by pjgulliver at 9:24 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 9:24 AM on August 1, 2002
It doesn't matter if these people got pregnant when they couldn't support children. The fact is, there are children now...so how do you make it so they can support them? EDUCATION.
Besides, its a little strange that the same party that is against abortion (a cost effective way of dealing with unwanted pregnacies) wishes to then penalize low-income mothers who carry the baby to term by seeking to make life as difficult as possible to teach them a lesson....
posted by pjgulliver at 9:27 AM on August 1, 2002
Besides, its a little strange that the same party that is against abortion (a cost effective way of dealing with unwanted pregnacies) wishes to then penalize low-income mothers who carry the baby to term by seeking to make life as difficult as possible to teach them a lesson....
posted by pjgulliver at 9:27 AM on August 1, 2002
Did it irk you, also, to see rich kids who spent their days on nearly anything but learning "getting their college and living expenses handed to them for nothing?"
It doesn't irk me, since they pay for their college. Sounds like you have a jealousy complex. A lot of them don't receive many scholarships either, leaving more for people like me.
Wouldn't all of those course liken the chance that the welfare recpient will eventually be able to find a job that pays enough that said person (and their children) will be able to move off welfare and support themselves?
I am supportive of anything that will get people off of welfare. Unfortunately, this type of welfare program says: "it doesn't matter that you made bad choices, you get to go to college FREE at the expense of all the kids and families who have made responsible choices." This will no doubt encourage many people to not think twice before they make their bad choices, and then I get to pay for it.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:35 AM on August 1, 2002
It doesn't irk me, since they pay for their college. Sounds like you have a jealousy complex. A lot of them don't receive many scholarships either, leaving more for people like me.
Wouldn't all of those course liken the chance that the welfare recpient will eventually be able to find a job that pays enough that said person (and their children) will be able to move off welfare and support themselves?
I am supportive of anything that will get people off of welfare. Unfortunately, this type of welfare program says: "it doesn't matter that you made bad choices, you get to go to college FREE at the expense of all the kids and families who have made responsible choices." This will no doubt encourage many people to not think twice before they make their bad choices, and then I get to pay for it.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:35 AM on August 1, 2002
I guess I don't really see it so much as "you made a bad choice now you can go to college" but as allowing people who never had opportunity a chance to improve themselves. And I don't possibly see how allowing welfare recipients a shot at college is at the expense of others. Remember, the argument, and what Bush was talking about, isn't that welfare should PAY FOR college. Rather, just that welfare should help cover basic living expenses while attending unveristy. How many people do you know who attended a tertiary institution and received no parental help whatso ever in covering basic living expenses? Such people are out there, but you have to admit they are a rariety. And believe me, I respect people who completely put themselves through school. But I also respect that most people who attend a tertiary institution have a substantial private network of help, which most welfare recpients lack. I mean, come on, where not talking about rich kids from the suburbs who quite school and their jobs and are now going back to study psychopharmicology at the tax payers expense. Rather, we are talking about people from extremely underpriveledged backgrounds recieving a little help on room and board while seeking to better themselves.
posted by pjgulliver at 9:41 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 9:41 AM on August 1, 2002
Insomnyuk,
heh heh. Nah, I was reasonably well off myself, at least by world standards.
Later, when I was a teacher, I was always amazed at how much more motivated students were who realized this might be their one shot out of the wretchedly low-paying low end service economy. So, I guess it's all anecdotal evidence, but if we are pragmatically looking to get people off welfare, as opposed to holding true to our ideological stances, I think education works.
But I *do* have complex jealousies. For example, I wanna be you.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:43 AM on August 1, 2002
heh heh. Nah, I was reasonably well off myself, at least by world standards.
Later, when I was a teacher, I was always amazed at how much more motivated students were who realized this might be their one shot out of the wretchedly low-paying low end service economy. So, I guess it's all anecdotal evidence, but if we are pragmatically looking to get people off welfare, as opposed to holding true to our ideological stances, I think education works.
But I *do* have complex jealousies. For example, I wanna be you.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:43 AM on August 1, 2002
I am opposed to all welfare, of course.
This, and the other crap you are spewing, insomnyuk, betrays you as short-sighted, narrow minded and most likely the defensive recipient of some other form of "free-ride" like a mom'n'pop paid education/car/trip abroad/computer/etc.
The people who you wouldn't educate today will grow up to be the people you have to cloth, house and feed in prison tomorrow. It's terrible for them and expensive for you. Why would you save $10 today to pay $100 tomorrow? Or your life (if you are one of the victims)? The correlation between poor education and criminal activity is well documented (although hotly contested by blowhards like yourself). In addition, poorly educated individuals outside of prisons become the breeding ground for drug resistant disease because they can't afford proper treatment or understand how antibiotics work, and, in general, become a lifetime burden on other public health systems that WE ALL NEED and depend on to maintain our currently very high standard of sanitation and germ-free-ness.
posted by plaino at 9:50 AM on August 1, 2002
This, and the other crap you are spewing, insomnyuk, betrays you as short-sighted, narrow minded and most likely the defensive recipient of some other form of "free-ride" like a mom'n'pop paid education/car/trip abroad/computer/etc.
The people who you wouldn't educate today will grow up to be the people you have to cloth, house and feed in prison tomorrow. It's terrible for them and expensive for you. Why would you save $10 today to pay $100 tomorrow? Or your life (if you are one of the victims)? The correlation between poor education and criminal activity is well documented (although hotly contested by blowhards like yourself). In addition, poorly educated individuals outside of prisons become the breeding ground for drug resistant disease because they can't afford proper treatment or understand how antibiotics work, and, in general, become a lifetime burden on other public health systems that WE ALL NEED and depend on to maintain our currently very high standard of sanitation and germ-free-ness.
posted by plaino at 9:50 AM on August 1, 2002
Rather, we are talking about people from extremely underpriveledged backgrounds recieving a little help on room and board while seeking to better themselves.
That is certainly a noble principle, and I do not disagree with the idea. I do not, however, like the idea of tax money funding it. If I want to help underprivileged people go to school, I should have the option of doing it, not letting politicians redistribute my money, where they may give it to those folks or not. On a pragmatic scale, the government also routinely wastes billions of dollars on all kinds of corporate welfare and individual welfare. I think private institutions would be more efficient and effective in providing poor people with access to schools.
But I *do* have complex jealousies. For example, I wanna be you.
If you really knew me you wouldn't say that :)
posted by insomnyuk at 9:53 AM on August 1, 2002
That is certainly a noble principle, and I do not disagree with the idea. I do not, however, like the idea of tax money funding it. If I want to help underprivileged people go to school, I should have the option of doing it, not letting politicians redistribute my money, where they may give it to those folks or not. On a pragmatic scale, the government also routinely wastes billions of dollars on all kinds of corporate welfare and individual welfare. I think private institutions would be more efficient and effective in providing poor people with access to schools.
But I *do* have complex jealousies. For example, I wanna be you.
If you really knew me you wouldn't say that :)
posted by insomnyuk at 9:53 AM on August 1, 2002
Why should my money go to support someone stupid enough to get pregnant without the financial backing AND pay for their college?
Stupid? What a load of arrogant nonsense. Do you honestly believe that most of these women are trying to become pregnant? Like it's a prize to have a child and have to goto school at the same time? Why don't you step off your high horse, cowboy, and realize that any education is a worthwhile expense. Besides which, to maintain federal funding, you must have a 2.0 or higher CPA.
A lot of them don't receive many scholarships either, leaving more for people like me.
Could you link some statistics, please? There are several different types of scholarships available, private and public, and need-based is only part of the larger equation.
"it doesn't matter that you made bad choices, you get to go to college FREE at the expense of all the kids and families who have made responsible choices."
Really? Who are these kids that are making responsible choices and aren't receiving funding? I'd love to see any factual evidence backing that claim as well.
I agree with pjgulliver. Seems to me that the Republican Party has a problem. They're against abortions and planned Parenthood, against handing out condoms at schools and teaching safe sex, but then won't help fund the child after it's born (tough luck, you made the "stupid" decision to get pregnant). Hmm...
posted by BlueTrain at 9:53 AM on August 1, 2002
Stupid? What a load of arrogant nonsense. Do you honestly believe that most of these women are trying to become pregnant? Like it's a prize to have a child and have to goto school at the same time? Why don't you step off your high horse, cowboy, and realize that any education is a worthwhile expense. Besides which, to maintain federal funding, you must have a 2.0 or higher CPA.
A lot of them don't receive many scholarships either, leaving more for people like me.
Could you link some statistics, please? There are several different types of scholarships available, private and public, and need-based is only part of the larger equation.
"it doesn't matter that you made bad choices, you get to go to college FREE at the expense of all the kids and families who have made responsible choices."
Really? Who are these kids that are making responsible choices and aren't receiving funding? I'd love to see any factual evidence backing that claim as well.
I agree with pjgulliver. Seems to me that the Republican Party has a problem. They're against abortions and planned Parenthood, against handing out condoms at schools and teaching safe sex, but then won't help fund the child after it's born (tough luck, you made the "stupid" decision to get pregnant). Hmm...
posted by BlueTrain at 9:53 AM on August 1, 2002
I would like to note that for the record, I am not a Republican. Some would call me a Libertarian, or an anarcho-capitalist, but most here just call me asshole. Whatever's easier for ya.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:56 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 9:56 AM on August 1, 2002
Insomnyuk, out of curiosity, at what level do you believe society does have a responsibility to underprivileged individuals? Ie, food to prevent starvation? Basic medicine? Education through grade 12? Is there any responsibility? I'm curious...its good to know you oppose corporate welfare as vehemently as you do social....one can always have a good conversation with someone who is consistent in their beliefs.
posted by pjgulliver at 10:00 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 10:00 AM on August 1, 2002
Really, the message is: The World Needs Ditchdiggers, Too. 5 years of college is 5 years of undug ditches.
Umm... the world DOES need ditch diggers. For better or worse, it's a distinctive characteristic of America that although we continue to need them, we make it clear that ditch diggers are the "losers" and college graduates are the "winners" in our society.
posted by coelecanth at 10:01 AM on August 1, 2002
Umm... the world DOES need ditch diggers. For better or worse, it's a distinctive characteristic of America that although we continue to need them, we make it clear that ditch diggers are the "losers" and college graduates are the "winners" in our society.
posted by coelecanth at 10:01 AM on August 1, 2002
Stupid? What a load of arrogant nonsense. Do you honestly believe that most of these women are trying to become pregnant?
BlueTrain, just for the record, where I grew up it was almost EXPECTED that you would go on welfare after high school. These kids could hardly wait to have their baby and start collecting their checks...need more $$? Have another baby. (needless to say, I live far, far, FAR from there now). I am ADAMANTLY opposed to this kind of b.s. and am so glad to see a work requirement. Welfare should NOT be a career option!
While I can certainly understand how some may need welfare to survive in the short-term, policies must be put in place to get people OFF the dole again. I feel education is an important element, but it shouldn't be 100% free.
posted by airgirl at 10:11 AM on August 1, 2002
BlueTrain, just for the record, where I grew up it was almost EXPECTED that you would go on welfare after high school. These kids could hardly wait to have their baby and start collecting their checks...need more $$? Have another baby. (needless to say, I live far, far, FAR from there now). I am ADAMANTLY opposed to this kind of b.s. and am so glad to see a work requirement. Welfare should NOT be a career option!
While I can certainly understand how some may need welfare to survive in the short-term, policies must be put in place to get people OFF the dole again. I feel education is an important element, but it shouldn't be 100% free.
posted by airgirl at 10:11 AM on August 1, 2002
Coelecanth,
No doubt. Well, no doubt, at least until the robots or enslaved hamsters start doing it.
Boy, then those "losers" are really gonna get riled up, huh? "I've been replaced with a robotic enslaved hamster!"
Airgirl,
Did any of these girls by chance drive cadillacs?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:21 AM on August 1, 2002
No doubt. Well, no doubt, at least until the robots or enslaved hamsters start doing it.
Boy, then those "losers" are really gonna get riled up, huh? "I've been replaced with a robotic enslaved hamster!"
Airgirl,
Did any of these girls by chance drive cadillacs?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:21 AM on August 1, 2002
Insomnyuk, out of curiosity, at what level do you believe society does have a responsibility to underprivileged individuals?
I think it is very problematic to try to define 'society' and then hold people to involuntary obligations to that society. I believe individuals have responsibilities to other individuals, though none of them are 'legal' in the traditional sense. Many religions (including mine) preach that people have a responsibility to care for their fellow man. I wholeheartedly agree with that notion, but I do not think it warrants me forcing others to help. I believe families have obligations to care for one another. I also think there are many private institutions which do a good job helping the needy. I do not think it is just for the State to take from one and give to another. I also do not think that government welfare is the best mechanism for helping the poor. Believe it or not, our country survived and even thrived before welfare. One wonders how they did it.
Bluetrain: here is your statistical link between unmarried pregnancy and poverty. I said immediately after the sentence you quoted that they are not stupid. They know what they're doing, and that they can get welfare for their pregnancy. Many of these people were raised on welfare, by single moms who received welfare themselves. You think they don't know this? Maybe I'm being too arrogant?
Really? Who are these kids that are making responsible choices and aren't receiving funding? I'd love to see any factual evidence backing that claim as well.
Factual evidence? Common sense should answer that question for you, unless you think the majority of college students are on welfare.
The people who you wouldn't educate today will grow up to be the people you have to cloth, house and feed in prison tomorrow.
Incidentally, I am against most of the policies which throw these sorts of people in jail (such as the drug war). The fact is, even poor, uneducated people have a choice between honest work and a life of crime. Most of them choose honest work over crime. I also think the current prison system is a perverse form of welfare: if you live a normal life you usually have to pay for your tv, your food, your clothes, and your exercise equipment. If you commit a few crimes, you get those things for free! How convenient.
This, and the other crap you are spewing, insomnyuk, betrays you as short-sighted, narrow minded and most likely the defensive recipient of some other form of "free-ride" like a mom'n'pop paid education/car/trip abroad/computer/etc.
What other crap? I'm not asking for any handouts. Yes, I don't need them because I have family that helps out, but so what? I receive scholarships and put my own money down for books and part of tuition. If I incur debts (which I probably will), I will have to pay for them myself. I know plenty of middle class, suburban white kids (you know, the kind that don't receive welfare, but that you malign as getting a free ride) who work full time and use their earnings to pay for school. That argument doesn't hold any water, not only because it's false, but because it doesn't address any of my arguments.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:23 AM on August 1, 2002
I think it is very problematic to try to define 'society' and then hold people to involuntary obligations to that society. I believe individuals have responsibilities to other individuals, though none of them are 'legal' in the traditional sense. Many religions (including mine) preach that people have a responsibility to care for their fellow man. I wholeheartedly agree with that notion, but I do not think it warrants me forcing others to help. I believe families have obligations to care for one another. I also think there are many private institutions which do a good job helping the needy. I do not think it is just for the State to take from one and give to another. I also do not think that government welfare is the best mechanism for helping the poor. Believe it or not, our country survived and even thrived before welfare. One wonders how they did it.
Bluetrain: here is your statistical link between unmarried pregnancy and poverty. I said immediately after the sentence you quoted that they are not stupid. They know what they're doing, and that they can get welfare for their pregnancy. Many of these people were raised on welfare, by single moms who received welfare themselves. You think they don't know this? Maybe I'm being too arrogant?
Really? Who are these kids that are making responsible choices and aren't receiving funding? I'd love to see any factual evidence backing that claim as well.
Factual evidence? Common sense should answer that question for you, unless you think the majority of college students are on welfare.
The people who you wouldn't educate today will grow up to be the people you have to cloth, house and feed in prison tomorrow.
Incidentally, I am against most of the policies which throw these sorts of people in jail (such as the drug war). The fact is, even poor, uneducated people have a choice between honest work and a life of crime. Most of them choose honest work over crime. I also think the current prison system is a perverse form of welfare: if you live a normal life you usually have to pay for your tv, your food, your clothes, and your exercise equipment. If you commit a few crimes, you get those things for free! How convenient.
This, and the other crap you are spewing, insomnyuk, betrays you as short-sighted, narrow minded and most likely the defensive recipient of some other form of "free-ride" like a mom'n'pop paid education/car/trip abroad/computer/etc.
What other crap? I'm not asking for any handouts. Yes, I don't need them because I have family that helps out, but so what? I receive scholarships and put my own money down for books and part of tuition. If I incur debts (which I probably will), I will have to pay for them myself. I know plenty of middle class, suburban white kids (you know, the kind that don't receive welfare, but that you malign as getting a free ride) who work full time and use their earnings to pay for school. That argument doesn't hold any water, not only because it's false, but because it doesn't address any of my arguments.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:23 AM on August 1, 2002
insomnyuk sez: "I also think the current prison system is a perverse form of welfare: if you live a normal life you usually have to pay for your tv, your food, your clothes, and your exercise equipment. If you commit a few crimes, you get those things for free! How convenient."
No no no no no. It turns out to be quite inconvenient. For example, I am a big fan of convenient things, hate shopping, hate deciding what to eat, and would love free tv and excercise equipment. And yet, there's just something about prison that keeps me from striking that tempting tempting bargain. Possibly the guards. Possibly the other inmates. Possibly the bars. Almost definitely the loss of boozing/drugging/smoking/porn privileges. "The hole." The whole gnarly rape thing. The anger. I don't know, maybe some combination of those things. Oh, I know! The outdoors! I like the outdoors.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:46 AM on August 1, 2002
No no no no no. It turns out to be quite inconvenient. For example, I am a big fan of convenient things, hate shopping, hate deciding what to eat, and would love free tv and excercise equipment. And yet, there's just something about prison that keeps me from striking that tempting tempting bargain. Possibly the guards. Possibly the other inmates. Possibly the bars. Almost definitely the loss of boozing/drugging/smoking/porn privileges. "The hole." The whole gnarly rape thing. The anger. I don't know, maybe some combination of those things. Oh, I know! The outdoors! I like the outdoors.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:46 AM on August 1, 2002
I know plenty of middle class, suburban white kids (you know, the kind that don't receive welfare, but that you malign as getting a free ride)
Let's be careful, here. I am not maligning THEM (I was one). I am maligning you for not recognizing that the dollars you receive look a lot like the dollars welfare recipients receive. The source is different but the mentality of the recipient is the same: "I am entitled."
The fact is, even poor, uneducated people have a choice between honest work and a life of crime.
You'd be surprised how many don't know this. There is a book called "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol that might open your eyes to the inexplicable link between poverty and crime - poor education - next generation of poverty and crime. This book is well researched and supported by numbers. The worst discovery in my opinion was that middle class schools, almost everywhere, could succesfully lobby to take money from already impoverished school districts based on the premise that the students there could not perform as well (therefore they must be wasting the money right?). Like it or not, it is these circumstances which create criminals by the truckload. If you cannot read or write or pay for a haircut or a shower, how much honest work is there for you to choose? If you can see middle class people using the political system to rob your school district of funding but don't have the political clout to fight it, are you going to trust them to protect your rights in other respects? Or trust them to use your taxes wisely or fairly? Or even come to your aid if you are attacked? These are all things that are difficult for me to understand because I am educated and come from a wealthy neighborhood, but this is the mindset of millions of poor people... a mind set that leads to crime and can only be fixed with education. A good education.
posted by plaino at 10:53 AM on August 1, 2002
Let's be careful, here. I am not maligning THEM (I was one). I am maligning you for not recognizing that the dollars you receive look a lot like the dollars welfare recipients receive. The source is different but the mentality of the recipient is the same: "I am entitled."
The fact is, even poor, uneducated people have a choice between honest work and a life of crime.
You'd be surprised how many don't know this. There is a book called "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol that might open your eyes to the inexplicable link between poverty and crime - poor education - next generation of poverty and crime. This book is well researched and supported by numbers. The worst discovery in my opinion was that middle class schools, almost everywhere, could succesfully lobby to take money from already impoverished school districts based on the premise that the students there could not perform as well (therefore they must be wasting the money right?). Like it or not, it is these circumstances which create criminals by the truckload. If you cannot read or write or pay for a haircut or a shower, how much honest work is there for you to choose? If you can see middle class people using the political system to rob your school district of funding but don't have the political clout to fight it, are you going to trust them to protect your rights in other respects? Or trust them to use your taxes wisely or fairly? Or even come to your aid if you are attacked? These are all things that are difficult for me to understand because I am educated and come from a wealthy neighborhood, but this is the mindset of millions of poor people... a mind set that leads to crime and can only be fixed with education. A good education.
posted by plaino at 10:53 AM on August 1, 2002
Insomnyuk "Believe it or not, our country survived and even thrived before welfare. One wonders how they did it." Believe it or not, this country survived and even thrived with legal chattal slavery. And no advanced medicine. And no electricity. And no indoor plumbing. And a bunch of other things I'm glad have changed. Using a historical argument like that has no relavence. One could just as easily say "The Phonecian's had human sacrifice and were the most powerful nation of their day, shouldn't we bring it back?"
Plus, the situation of a welfare recipient with no family and no funds is completely different than a middle class white kid who works during the summer to put himself through school.
posted by pjgulliver at 10:55 AM on August 1, 2002
Plus, the situation of a welfare recipient with no family and no funds is completely different than a middle class white kid who works during the summer to put himself through school.
posted by pjgulliver at 10:55 AM on August 1, 2002
Great discussion here. Thanks!
How about corporate welfare?
Shouldn't the rhetoric from our current regime be as vociferous against it, especially considering it's total cost overwhelms social welfare costs? You know, things like the farm bills (Archer Daniels) and the steel tariffs (US Steel) and the tax exemptions (Enron and others) etc.
And if social welfare were eliminated, wouldn't we HAVE to pay our armed services personnel more money? Many of those families depend on food stamps. Remember "Hang in there, Help is on the way?"
Isn't it also a form of "welfare" for the very wealthy to pay only a small percentage of income on taxes (2-3%) when the average Joe might pay 38-45%? I guess what I'm asking about is fairness for all and it doesn't seem fair to denigrate the very poor and give a free ride to others.
posted by nofundy at 11:01 AM on August 1, 2002
How about corporate welfare?
Shouldn't the rhetoric from our current regime be as vociferous against it, especially considering it's total cost overwhelms social welfare costs? You know, things like the farm bills (Archer Daniels) and the steel tariffs (US Steel) and the tax exemptions (Enron and others) etc.
And if social welfare were eliminated, wouldn't we HAVE to pay our armed services personnel more money? Many of those families depend on food stamps. Remember "Hang in there, Help is on the way?"
Isn't it also a form of "welfare" for the very wealthy to pay only a small percentage of income on taxes (2-3%) when the average Joe might pay 38-45%? I guess what I'm asking about is fairness for all and it doesn't seem fair to denigrate the very poor and give a free ride to others.
posted by nofundy at 11:01 AM on August 1, 2002
Oh yeah...
What other crap?
From this thread:
Paying people to go to college doesn't necessarily teach them responsibility or job skills, or anything like that.
Why should my money go to support someone stupid enough to get pregnant without the financial backing AND pay for their college?
I guess you could call it government subsidized pregnancy. Where are you population control advocates now?
This will no doubt encourage many people to not think twice before they make their bad choices, and then I get to pay for it.
posted by plaino at 11:03 AM on August 1, 2002
What other crap?
From this thread:
Paying people to go to college doesn't necessarily teach them responsibility or job skills, or anything like that.
Why should my money go to support someone stupid enough to get pregnant without the financial backing AND pay for their college?
I guess you could call it government subsidized pregnancy. Where are you population control advocates now?
This will no doubt encourage many people to not think twice before they make their bad choices, and then I get to pay for it.
posted by plaino at 11:03 AM on August 1, 2002
These debates would be far more productive and entertaining if a few more individuals could acknowledge that moral obligation =! legal obligation and that opposition to government run welfare =! hatred of the poor. I find fewer things more maddening than to have my personal morality defined (and mocked) by others on the basis of my opinions on the proper scope of the state. Whether we have a moral obligation to those less-fortunate is one question, and one in which we are all in agreement. How to practice this obligation is a second, and separate question with reams of empirical data and no consensus. Whether the government is the appropriate instigator of this obligation, coercively or otherwise, is a further question, on which we should all feel free to disagree, and loudly. But so far as we are defined as "caring" or "Republican" entirely on the basis of our willingness to have the welfare of the poor a primarily federal program, these discussions are going to suffer, as will our ability to improve the programs, and ultimately the plight of those they serve.
Now play nice, you bastards.
posted by apostasy at 11:12 AM on August 1, 2002
Now play nice, you bastards.
posted by apostasy at 11:12 AM on August 1, 2002
Do you honestly believe that most of these women are trying to become pregnant?
Hmm. Insert A into B without any wall between A and B. It seems rather simple to me.
I'm against corporate welfare (if your company can't survive, too bad - that's capitalism) and I believe in social welfare only to help people through rough spots (as opposed to the rest of their life).
posted by owillis at 11:17 AM on August 1, 2002
Hmm. Insert A into B without any wall between A and B. It seems rather simple to me.
I'm against corporate welfare (if your company can't survive, too bad - that's capitalism) and I believe in social welfare only to help people through rough spots (as opposed to the rest of their life).
posted by owillis at 11:17 AM on August 1, 2002
nofundy: Dear. God. Yes.
I have yet to meet a Republican who is happy with Bush's protectionist policies. I know they're out there, just not here (not much steel or farming in suburban San Diego). The best they have to say is that it'll help him get re-elected, and they'll accept it for that. I personally find it strange to be irritated that he's not being conservative enough...
Back to the article, as it quotes Bush selectively, did Bush's comments imply an opposition to welfare education in general or to using all 5 years in class (which does sound excessive)?
posted by apostasy at 11:19 AM on August 1, 2002
I have yet to meet a Republican who is happy with Bush's protectionist policies. I know they're out there, just not here (not much steel or farming in suburban San Diego). The best they have to say is that it'll help him get re-elected, and they'll accept it for that. I personally find it strange to be irritated that he's not being conservative enough...
Back to the article, as it quotes Bush selectively, did Bush's comments imply an opposition to welfare education in general or to using all 5 years in class (which does sound excessive)?
posted by apostasy at 11:19 AM on August 1, 2002
What does that "through rough spots" phrase mean owillis? Does that mean that if you go through your, say, 2 year alotment, the government should let you starve? Or turn you out on the street? Seriously, what would you imagine should happen to those who are unable to find adequate employment to support themselves over the long term?
posted by pjgulliver at 11:20 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 11:20 AM on August 1, 2002
How to practice this obligation is a second, and separate question with reams of empirical data and no consensus.
Are you making the laughably absurd proposition that if government did not ensure a minimum welfare for all, that people would do it of their own accord?
posted by plaino at 11:29 AM on August 1, 2002
Are you making the laughably absurd proposition that if government did not ensure a minimum welfare for all, that people would do it of their own accord?
posted by plaino at 11:29 AM on August 1, 2002
My view is that welfare should provide some minimum substinence to the innocent victims (these women's children) while clearly and visibly penalizing the women themselves for their irresponsible conduct, until the social norms begin to reverse towards their proper orientation.
Are you talking about a scarlet "A" here? Or perhaps a televised stoning. And pity the poor men who are drawn to these wanton women as their collective sperm crashes against these sirens' rocks. Men are just as capable of ponying up the cash for condoms as women. Oh, the women are lying about being on birth control? Well, I'm sure that there's never been a man who lied about pulling out, or assured a naieve girl that pregnancy wasn't a possibility.
And of course there are people out there who just don't get it, and are clueless about birth control, or are sneaky scam artists who see a baby and think, ca-ching! But to declare that the majority of welfare recipients are women who are baby mills or freeloaders with no intention of exposing themselves to the horrors of a cubicle farm or a grease trap is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are working families who can barely keep their heads above water; there are victims of domestic abuse; there are mothers with disabled children; the mentally ill or physically disabled; people who try hard and for whatever reason can't get a break; there's the woman whose husband left her with three kids and no money and she has no marketable skills; and those who come from families or areas that have poor community resources, such as schools. Well over half of people on the dole either didn't finish high school, or have no education beyond high school.
And for someone who is supposedly in charge of the *welfare* of the people of his country not to see how college would help someone improve their chances in life, above and beyond just handing them free money until they find that crappy minimum wage job, especially when he went to two of said country's finest universities...ugh. Check, please.
posted by kittyloop at 11:44 AM on August 1, 2002
Are you talking about a scarlet "A" here? Or perhaps a televised stoning. And pity the poor men who are drawn to these wanton women as their collective sperm crashes against these sirens' rocks. Men are just as capable of ponying up the cash for condoms as women. Oh, the women are lying about being on birth control? Well, I'm sure that there's never been a man who lied about pulling out, or assured a naieve girl that pregnancy wasn't a possibility.
And of course there are people out there who just don't get it, and are clueless about birth control, or are sneaky scam artists who see a baby and think, ca-ching! But to declare that the majority of welfare recipients are women who are baby mills or freeloaders with no intention of exposing themselves to the horrors of a cubicle farm or a grease trap is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are working families who can barely keep their heads above water; there are victims of domestic abuse; there are mothers with disabled children; the mentally ill or physically disabled; people who try hard and for whatever reason can't get a break; there's the woman whose husband left her with three kids and no money and she has no marketable skills; and those who come from families or areas that have poor community resources, such as schools. Well over half of people on the dole either didn't finish high school, or have no education beyond high school.
And for someone who is supposedly in charge of the *welfare* of the people of his country not to see how college would help someone improve their chances in life, above and beyond just handing them free money until they find that crappy minimum wage job, especially when he went to two of said country's finest universities...ugh. Check, please.
posted by kittyloop at 11:44 AM on August 1, 2002
I though most of us were beyond trolling? Guess I was wrong.. not pointing any fingers (Insonyuk) but sheesh wake up,
Almost all other major industrial nation partially/fully subsidize higher ed, (Germany, finland, Sweden, Austria, Russia (I think they still do) ) for pennies on our dollars and they are roported to have a matching, and in some cases high standard of living than we do..
posted by Elim at 11:45 AM on August 1, 2002
Almost all other major industrial nation partially/fully subsidize higher ed, (Germany, finland, Sweden, Austria, Russia (I think they still do) ) for pennies on our dollars and they are roported to have a matching, and in some cases high standard of living than we do..
posted by Elim at 11:45 AM on August 1, 2002
plaino: No, I was suggesting that there is a mountain of disagreement over what an effective welfare strategy would be, irrespective of who pays for it. Welfare vs. workfare, time limits, dollar amounts, etc.
There was also an implicit proposition that people such as yourself who hurl invective at whoever disagrees are a stain on the conversation and should try speaking out of a different orifice on occasion.
posted by apostasy at 11:46 AM on August 1, 2002
There was also an implicit proposition that people such as yourself who hurl invective at whoever disagrees are a stain on the conversation and should try speaking out of a different orifice on occasion.
posted by apostasy at 11:46 AM on August 1, 2002
Hmm. Insert A into B without any wall between A and B. It seems rather simple to me.
Yes, well, you actually had the benefit of being educated about this. Consider yourself privileged, there.
posted by maura at 11:46 AM on August 1, 2002
Yes, well, you actually had the benefit of being educated about this. Consider yourself privileged, there.
posted by maura at 11:46 AM on August 1, 2002
a distinctive characteristic of America that although we continue to need them, we make it clear that ditch diggers are the "losers" and college graduates are the "winners" in our society.
I don't really think that's a distinctive characteristic of America.
posted by Summer at 12:09 PM on August 1, 2002
I don't really think that's a distinctive characteristic of America.
posted by Summer at 12:09 PM on August 1, 2002
Beautiful post, aposty. I'm in complete agreement with you. I hate it when people automatically assume I hate the poor and downtrodden because I do not believe that the State has any inherent obligation to support them, or authority to coerce me to pay for it. I give to charity, I do good works, but just because I'm opposed to State-driven welfare schemes, I'm an evil hobgoblin. The left call themselves compassionate, but they've got alot to learn.
As time passes, this quote makes more and more sense to me:
"In order to understand American politics, you must remember one fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."
posted by jammer at 12:20 PM on August 1, 2002
As time passes, this quote makes more and more sense to me:
"In order to understand American politics, you must remember one fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."
posted by jammer at 12:20 PM on August 1, 2002
Jammer and Aposty: I don't think its that liberals automatically asume that you hate the poor. In fact, they'd like to believe what you say about private sector responses. However, what I think liberals are afraid of is that even though many of them recognize welfare (in its current form) as flawed an inefficient, there appears no viable alternative to protect the week in society, especially children and handicapped/disabled growing up in extreme poverty. At a bare minumum, how, without legal mandates and government intervention, can you ensure that those unable to control their own destinies (children, handicapped/disabled) are not permentally relegated to a marginal existance by the poor choices of their parents?
posted by pjgulliver at 12:42 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 12:42 PM on August 1, 2002
"Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."
I guess Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. are not conservatives, then...
posted by thomas j wise at 12:57 PM on August 1, 2002
I guess Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. are not conservatives, then...
posted by thomas j wise at 12:57 PM on August 1, 2002
As time passes, this quote makes more and more sense to me:
Well, since it's a stupid quotation, does that make you... ah, no. It's just Michael Kelly who's stupid.
posted by riviera at 12:58 PM on August 1, 2002
Well, since it's a stupid quotation, does that make you... ah, no. It's just Michael Kelly who's stupid.
posted by riviera at 12:58 PM on August 1, 2002
pjgulliver: An excellent question, with no excellent answers.
Welfare is always going to be stuck between competing interests. On the one hand we want to encourage people to be self-reliant and to leave welfare, and to have the system run efficiently, both of which are better left to private institutions. On the other, we want to ensure that no one is left behind and ignored, and that a minimum level is ensured regardless of the whims of the populace at any given time, and state intervention is likely needed for this.
But these are pragmatic issues, and you rightly point out that institutionalizing welfare gives it a sort of stable and enduring nature (at least in theory). There still remains questions such as whether the state has any kind of moral right to force individuals to be charitable, even if the alternative is some being left behind. And it'd be nice to be able to discuss the point without watching our backs.
jammer: I particularly enjoy ESR's descriptions of conservatives and liberals.
posted by apostasy at 1:00 PM on August 1, 2002
Welfare is always going to be stuck between competing interests. On the one hand we want to encourage people to be self-reliant and to leave welfare, and to have the system run efficiently, both of which are better left to private institutions. On the other, we want to ensure that no one is left behind and ignored, and that a minimum level is ensured regardless of the whims of the populace at any given time, and state intervention is likely needed for this.
But these are pragmatic issues, and you rightly point out that institutionalizing welfare gives it a sort of stable and enduring nature (at least in theory). There still remains questions such as whether the state has any kind of moral right to force individuals to be charitable, even if the alternative is some being left behind. And it'd be nice to be able to discuss the point without watching our backs.
jammer: I particularly enjoy ESR's descriptions of conservatives and liberals.
posted by apostasy at 1:00 PM on August 1, 2002
I do not think it is just for the State to take from one and give to another. ('yuk)
According to Gore Vidal, that is precisely the function of gov't -- its only function: "Politics is the art of collecting and distributing money" (or words to that effect.) In a democracy, the people are involved in the decisions, who to tax, and what to spend it on: more bombs? more schools? more highways? more prisons? more hospitals?
Personally, I prefer my money go to the needy rather than to Halliburton. In Germany, there's the concept of a "social net," which is the idea that the more fortunate have a responsibility to those who are worse off, and that there is only so low you can fall before society will catch you. To me, this is exactly what makes a society different from a pack of roaming wolves: we look out after one another. But then again, Germany is a social democracy, which, as someone else already pointed out, doesn't charge for attending university at all.
posted by muckster at 1:16 PM on August 1, 2002
According to Gore Vidal, that is precisely the function of gov't -- its only function: "Politics is the art of collecting and distributing money" (or words to that effect.) In a democracy, the people are involved in the decisions, who to tax, and what to spend it on: more bombs? more schools? more highways? more prisons? more hospitals?
Personally, I prefer my money go to the needy rather than to Halliburton. In Germany, there's the concept of a "social net," which is the idea that the more fortunate have a responsibility to those who are worse off, and that there is only so low you can fall before society will catch you. To me, this is exactly what makes a society different from a pack of roaming wolves: we look out after one another. But then again, Germany is a social democracy, which, as someone else already pointed out, doesn't charge for attending university at all.
posted by muckster at 1:16 PM on August 1, 2002
muckster, that was one of the most level-headed posts I have seen here in a long time. Thank you.
posted by goneill at 2:15 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by goneill at 2:15 PM on August 1, 2002
You know, if we had a secondary education system that was worth anything, you wouldn't need to put those on welfare through college... even if they get a ditch digging backhoe driving job, they could go to night school after digging to learn the additional skills to be something fun, like a computer repair technician.
posted by phoenix enflamed at 2:26 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by phoenix enflamed at 2:26 PM on August 1, 2002
Politics is the art of collecting and distributing money
Indeed, that is what politics is about, the cancer that grows immediately when government is instituted. Government, on the other hand, has a different purpose: defending life and property from fraud, violence and oppression (to summarize from John C. Calhoun). Its method is collecting taxes by force and then using force to accomplish its appointed tasks.
How about corporate welfare?
As I have said before, I disagree with all State instituted welfare, especially the corporate kind, because in the long run protectionism will cause more damage to the U.S. and Global economy than social welfare (unless it is taken too far) will.
Personally, I prefer my money go to the needy rather than to Halliburton.
That's great, I agree with you on that premise. Donate it to a local charity which directly cares for the needy, rather than a byzantine government bureaucracy which wastes billions on administration, fraud, and kickbacks. It's so much easier for politicians to 'take care' of the poor with other peoples money rather than get their own hands dirty and donate their own money and time. While they're at it they get lots of soft money and perks. It's a pretty sweet system. If you ever travel to West Virginia, notice how everything looks like its named after Robert Byrd (former Klansmen and current Democrat), a great proponent of welfare. Congress can't help anybody but themselves. But imagine the kind of social safety net you could create in your own town, county or state if instead those millions spent on campaigns and lobbyists and bureaucrats were privately used to create more responsive, effective and caring systems locally? Is Habitat for Humanity run by the government? Is the Red Cross run by the government? Is Good Will run by the government? Is United Way run by the government? Are hundreds of soup kitchens and relief centers run by the government? Many of them are run privately. Instead, the federal solution is to just give people money. That doesn't make sense. Welfare reform has succeeded inasmuch as it has made it more convenient for welfare recipients to work rather than jump through the new hurdles and hassles required to get money. And that's the problem, when you give people who are behaving in a certain way money, the odds are that their particular behavior will merely continue. If you can't deal with the idea of eliminating welfare, at least don't force it on the rest of us. Support it in your own state and deal with it on a more local level, rather than a top-down, one size fits all solution from Washington D.C.
Isn't it also a form of "welfare" for the very wealthy to pay only a small percentage of income on taxes (2-3%) when the average Joe might pay 38-45%?
I would like to see your numbers on this. The lowest income bracket still pays payroll tax (FICA) but they don't pay any income tax. The highest income brackets can opt out of FICA (I believe) but still have to pay income tax. If our government was trimmed to its 1990 budget (according to Congressman Ron Paul), the U.S. wouldn't even need an income tax to balance the budget.
can you ensure that those unable to control their own destinies are not permentally relegated to a marginal existance by the poor choices of their parents?
You can't ensure that now. Welfare that keeps people enslaved and dependent to the system can hardly be seen as improving anyone's existence. Not to mention the fact that social workers have their livelihoods to consider too. The more people get off welfare, the less important their job becomes. Instead of being concerned primarily for the welfare recipient, social workers may tend to treat them as job security and not try very hard to get them off the dole.
Believe it or not, this country survived and even thrived with legal chattal slavery. And no advanced medicine. And no electricity. And no indoor plumbing. And a bunch of other things I'm glad have changed.
You're leaving out the 100 years between the end of slavery and the beginning of the Great Society programs of LBJ. Why are historical examples not worth using?
posted by insomnyuk at 2:43 PM on August 1, 2002
Indeed, that is what politics is about, the cancer that grows immediately when government is instituted. Government, on the other hand, has a different purpose: defending life and property from fraud, violence and oppression (to summarize from John C. Calhoun). Its method is collecting taxes by force and then using force to accomplish its appointed tasks.
How about corporate welfare?
As I have said before, I disagree with all State instituted welfare, especially the corporate kind, because in the long run protectionism will cause more damage to the U.S. and Global economy than social welfare (unless it is taken too far) will.
Personally, I prefer my money go to the needy rather than to Halliburton.
That's great, I agree with you on that premise. Donate it to a local charity which directly cares for the needy, rather than a byzantine government bureaucracy which wastes billions on administration, fraud, and kickbacks. It's so much easier for politicians to 'take care' of the poor with other peoples money rather than get their own hands dirty and donate their own money and time. While they're at it they get lots of soft money and perks. It's a pretty sweet system. If you ever travel to West Virginia, notice how everything looks like its named after Robert Byrd (former Klansmen and current Democrat), a great proponent of welfare. Congress can't help anybody but themselves. But imagine the kind of social safety net you could create in your own town, county or state if instead those millions spent on campaigns and lobbyists and bureaucrats were privately used to create more responsive, effective and caring systems locally? Is Habitat for Humanity run by the government? Is the Red Cross run by the government? Is Good Will run by the government? Is United Way run by the government? Are hundreds of soup kitchens and relief centers run by the government? Many of them are run privately. Instead, the federal solution is to just give people money. That doesn't make sense. Welfare reform has succeeded inasmuch as it has made it more convenient for welfare recipients to work rather than jump through the new hurdles and hassles required to get money. And that's the problem, when you give people who are behaving in a certain way money, the odds are that their particular behavior will merely continue. If you can't deal with the idea of eliminating welfare, at least don't force it on the rest of us. Support it in your own state and deal with it on a more local level, rather than a top-down, one size fits all solution from Washington D.C.
Isn't it also a form of "welfare" for the very wealthy to pay only a small percentage of income on taxes (2-3%) when the average Joe might pay 38-45%?
I would like to see your numbers on this. The lowest income bracket still pays payroll tax (FICA) but they don't pay any income tax. The highest income brackets can opt out of FICA (I believe) but still have to pay income tax. If our government was trimmed to its 1990 budget (according to Congressman Ron Paul), the U.S. wouldn't even need an income tax to balance the budget.
can you ensure that those unable to control their own destinies are not permentally relegated to a marginal existance by the poor choices of their parents?
You can't ensure that now. Welfare that keeps people enslaved and dependent to the system can hardly be seen as improving anyone's existence. Not to mention the fact that social workers have their livelihoods to consider too. The more people get off welfare, the less important their job becomes. Instead of being concerned primarily for the welfare recipient, social workers may tend to treat them as job security and not try very hard to get them off the dole.
Believe it or not, this country survived and even thrived with legal chattal slavery. And no advanced medicine. And no electricity. And no indoor plumbing. And a bunch of other things I'm glad have changed.
You're leaving out the 100 years between the end of slavery and the beginning of the Great Society programs of LBJ. Why are historical examples not worth using?
posted by insomnyuk at 2:43 PM on August 1, 2002
I do not think it is just for the State to take from one and give to another. ('yuk)
According to Gore Vidal, that is precisely the function of gov't -- its only function
Which is why it is extremely fortunate that he is not in elected office. Although with gentlemen like Charlie Rangel advocating a constitutional amendment to guarantee everyone in the U.S. a house, he may be there in spirit.
Germany is a social democracy, which, as someone else already pointed out, doesn't charge for attending university at all.
The student may not be charged for it, but somebody pays. Somebody always does.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:45 PM on August 1, 2002
According to Gore Vidal, that is precisely the function of gov't -- its only function
Which is why it is extremely fortunate that he is not in elected office. Although with gentlemen like Charlie Rangel advocating a constitutional amendment to guarantee everyone in the U.S. a house, he may be there in spirit.
Germany is a social democracy, which, as someone else already pointed out, doesn't charge for attending university at all.
The student may not be charged for it, but somebody pays. Somebody always does.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:45 PM on August 1, 2002
Yes, well, you actually had the benefit of being educated about this. Consider yourself privileged, there
Thanks to my mother for not being a half-wit.
Almost all other major industrial nation partially/fully subsidize higher ed, (Germany, finland, Sweden, Austria, Russia (I think they still do) ) for pennies on our dollars and they are roported to have a matching, and in some cases high standard of living than we do..
You think Americans are overtaxed ...
What does that "through rough spots" phrase mean owillis? Does that mean that if you go through your, say, 2 year alotment, the government should let you starve? Or turn you out on the street? Seriously, what would you imagine should happen to those who are unable to find adequate employment to support themselves over the long term?
There isn't any real good reason why an ablebodied, able-minded person can't get a job at a fast food establishment, cleaning apartments, whatever. If they need education to learn how to read/write - I have no problem with tax dollars going towards this. I actually feel tax bucks spent teaching people how to become white collar workers vs. blue collar helps us all in the long run. What I'm not willing to pay for is shiftless losers who want a handout. Maybe wandering the streets homeless will wisen them up...
posted by owillis at 3:10 PM on August 1, 2002
Thanks to my mother for not being a half-wit.
Almost all other major industrial nation partially/fully subsidize higher ed, (Germany, finland, Sweden, Austria, Russia (I think they still do) ) for pennies on our dollars and they are roported to have a matching, and in some cases high standard of living than we do..
You think Americans are overtaxed ...
What does that "through rough spots" phrase mean owillis? Does that mean that if you go through your, say, 2 year alotment, the government should let you starve? Or turn you out on the street? Seriously, what would you imagine should happen to those who are unable to find adequate employment to support themselves over the long term?
There isn't any real good reason why an ablebodied, able-minded person can't get a job at a fast food establishment, cleaning apartments, whatever. If they need education to learn how to read/write - I have no problem with tax dollars going towards this. I actually feel tax bucks spent teaching people how to become white collar workers vs. blue collar helps us all in the long run. What I'm not willing to pay for is shiftless losers who want a handout. Maybe wandering the streets homeless will wisen them up...
posted by owillis at 3:10 PM on August 1, 2002
- you think americans are overtaxed .......
compared to what we get for our dollars hell yes, we get diddly, except a bailout of a failed mega corps, and more sgt yorks, and ospreys, while we eat less safe food, go to less adequate schools and have virtually the worst healthcare of any other first world nation.. (don't get me wrong, great doctors and hospitals and medicine, just can't afford to use them, that progress...)
- there isn't any real good reason why an ablebodied, able-minded person can't get a job at a fast food establishment, cleaning apartments, whatever>
Oh I see! they should cleanup and feed rich folk for the privilege of 'possibly' getting enough to feed them selves? they should just shut up and except it? smacks of a bit of an elitist there.....
your right about one thing, Our current welfare system sucks, they should put more into institutions and less directly to the people, in the way of grants, a monthly stipend to feed and clothe, minimal shelter, the basics, (anyone who wouldn't even allow that is just not humane)
educational opportunity in the way of vocational or (if they qualify in the way of ability) higher education...
If in school, stipend is limited to housing on food lodging and smaller stippance, as long as actively in school and minimal grades, them release to the wide world with diploma $1000 and a how-do-u-do.
Then if they fail or flounder, get them some ditch digging job..
believe it or not that would be cheaper in the long and short run....
as for home with the kids on welfare, different problem, different issue, different solutions, like healthcare, family planning, daycare and foodbanks..
Frankly just as an aside, we did have a pretty sound stable socialist style nation states here for a few thousand years doing real well till the neighbors showed up. We had cities, and Pyramids and sports arenas and all. all with out money. hmm couldn't be.....
posted by Elim at 3:51 PM on August 1, 2002
compared to what we get for our dollars hell yes, we get diddly, except a bailout of a failed mega corps, and more sgt yorks, and ospreys, while we eat less safe food, go to less adequate schools and have virtually the worst healthcare of any other first world nation.. (don't get me wrong, great doctors and hospitals and medicine, just can't afford to use them, that progress...)
- there isn't any real good reason why an ablebodied, able-minded person can't get a job at a fast food establishment, cleaning apartments, whatever>
Oh I see! they should cleanup and feed rich folk for the privilege of 'possibly' getting enough to feed them selves? they should just shut up and except it? smacks of a bit of an elitist there.....
your right about one thing, Our current welfare system sucks, they should put more into institutions and less directly to the people, in the way of grants, a monthly stipend to feed and clothe, minimal shelter, the basics, (anyone who wouldn't even allow that is just not humane)
educational opportunity in the way of vocational or (if they qualify in the way of ability) higher education...
If in school, stipend is limited to housing on food lodging and smaller stippance, as long as actively in school and minimal grades, them release to the wide world with diploma $1000 and a how-do-u-do.
Then if they fail or flounder, get them some ditch digging job..
believe it or not that would be cheaper in the long and short run....
as for home with the kids on welfare, different problem, different issue, different solutions, like healthcare, family planning, daycare and foodbanks..
Frankly just as an aside, we did have a pretty sound stable socialist style nation states here for a few thousand years doing real well till the neighbors showed up. We had cities, and Pyramids and sports arenas and all. all with out money. hmm couldn't be.....
posted by Elim at 3:51 PM on August 1, 2002
Just to defend abstinence education a bit, it by no means advocates not teaching the facts of life (i.e., that sex can lead to pregnancy or STDs) but simply declines to teach methods of avoiding pregnancy while having sex. Someone who has had abstincence education and chooses to have sex does so full well knowing the potential pregnancy consequences.
posted by MattD at 4:29 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by MattD at 4:29 PM on August 1, 2002
MattD, the fine distinction you point out is duly noted. However, wouldn't you agree that providing people with all relevant information would improve the likelihood that they can make informed choices, and that "declining to teach methods of avoiding pregnancy" would increase the probability of unwanted pregnancies?
posted by muckster at 6:03 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by muckster at 6:03 PM on August 1, 2002
At a bare minimum, how, without legal mandates and government intervention, can you ensure that those unable to control their own destinies (children, handicapped/disabled) are not parentally relegated to a marginal existence by the poor choices of their parents?
It does not occur to me that I should be concerned with how other people run their lives. If this is my concern, why not what they do in their bedrooms and other personal choices? Forcing this to be an involuntary function of government seems to me to be an admission of the supporters that there is no will, or not enough direct support to fund welfare recipients privately. It is pretty low to leech of the majority to fund what should be a private cause. If that is not the case there should be no problem making the system private. Why favor limiting choice?
I do not support corporate welfare either, and believe it is an equal abuse of my tax money. Fortunately, there is no lack of support for doing away with that sort of tax crime.
posted by thirteen at 9:53 PM on August 1, 2002
It does not occur to me that I should be concerned with how other people run their lives. If this is my concern, why not what they do in their bedrooms and other personal choices? Forcing this to be an involuntary function of government seems to me to be an admission of the supporters that there is no will, or not enough direct support to fund welfare recipients privately. It is pretty low to leech of the majority to fund what should be a private cause. If that is not the case there should be no problem making the system private. Why favor limiting choice?
I do not support corporate welfare either, and believe it is an equal abuse of my tax money. Fortunately, there is no lack of support for doing away with that sort of tax crime.
posted by thirteen at 9:53 PM on August 1, 2002
Our current welfare system sucks, they should put more into institutions and less directly to the people, in the way of grants, a monthly stipend to feed and clothe, minimal shelter, the basics, (anyone who wouldn't even allow that is just not humane)
One's humanity is not measured by the degree to which they accept the welfare state as a solution to societal ills.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:39 AM on August 2, 2002
One's humanity is not measured by the degree to which they accept the welfare state as a solution to societal ills.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:39 AM on August 2, 2002
« Older Diary for a New America: | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by zoopraxiscope at 8:36 AM on August 1, 2002