|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2011 : 22:09:22 [Permalink]
|
All government employees should have mandatory random drug screenings, at least once a month.
And by all I mean all. Every useless dirtbag piece of shit politician elected into any office. I want them all drug tested, because I think that all of them are burning the chronic harder than Bubba ever did, and that shit made him forget that he inhaled it! How the fuck else can you explain the shit that comes out of their mouths? They are all high!
Mandatory drug testing for all elected officials and criminal charges when they turn up positive.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 05:06:55 [Permalink]
|
originally posted by marfknox
| Yay, more anecdotal evidence without any objective evidence. |
So exactly how do you propose to get accurate, objective evidence on how people abuse or manipulate the system? Do you think these folks are going to open up to somebody doing a study? I don't think so. The only way to get this information is when they are being candid or bragging about it.
More anecdotal evidence.
There is a couple I know who have been together for nearly two decades. They have seven children. They have never been married because if they did they would lose their benefits. Dad avoids paying child support by working cash jobs.
To counteract that bad example I also know a father, a legal immigrant, who's Native American wife is in prison for many years. He works very hard to take care of his five children. He does not receive any assistance. He has health insurance for his kids. He puts forth much effort and shows much love for his children.
See, I am willing to help story #2, but he is not asking for any help. He has integrity. (Actually we kind of help by taking care of a couple of the kids occasionally when he has to work weekends but the kids are a joy to be with)
Story#1 only makes me feel contempt. I think that there should be heavy pressure put on that couple to get their shit together.
Which brings up another question. Why do these poor people squirt out so many damn kids? Rubbers are much cheaper than raising a kid. I've managed to live this long without knocking anyone up! Why can't they? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 06:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | So exactly how do you propose to get accurate, objective evidence on how people abuse or manipulate the system? |
What can be assessed is whether the any program actually helps with the problem/s it is designed to help. My point is that there will ALWAYS be abuses. But that is irrelevant. All that matters is whether a program helps or not. If it doesn't help, it is a bad program. If it helps, it is a good program, regardless of whether some people are abusing it or not (unless, of course those abuses are causing new problems which are even larger than the initial problem. And the examples you have cited are only problematic because they show wastes of government funds. Such "waste" is not waste if overall the program is a success.)
You can sit around having respect and contempt for whoever you want. You can sit around judging poor people for how large of a family they decide to have. But what does that do?
Here is an excellent site that criticizes social program which are shown to not actually work because of the evidence, which highlights social programs which are shown to work, and which promotes rigorous research to figure out the difference between the two and thereby slowly weed out programs that don't work and implement more that do: http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wordpress/ Here's an example from the website of a program that include cash supplements and is shown to work: http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wordpress/?page_id=146 This program also costs more than the program it was compared to, but it actually worked, which I would think makes the additional costs worth it in the long term. THIS is what the discussion should be about. Not just a laundry list of example of poor people being assholes. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 12:24:33 [Permalink]
|
Ebone, even though I don't think the example is relevant to the discussion of policies regarding social programs in the U.S., I keep thinking about the example of "bad" that you gave above, and I'd like to respond to it as an isolated question of ethical behavior. You wrote: | There is a couple I know who have been together for nearly two decades. They have seven children. They have never been married because if they did they would lose their benefits. Dad avoids paying child support by working cash jobs. |
Why the hell would a couple, where the man is working and the woman is taking care of 7 children, get married if it would mean losing valuable benefits that they use to maintain their family? Why would the man quit the job he has and take on a job making less money? You seem to think the principle of the matter (your principles, mind you) are more important than the practical considerations of these people and how they live their lives. I have known a couple couples that didn't get married because the benefits the mother gets as a single mother outweigh any benefits that legal marriage would provide. That seems to be a problem with the system, not a problem with their personal ethics. And the system is always going to be in need of some reform because, as humans, we're never getting things perfect (and hell, even if we do get something perfect, eventually circumstances will change so that it won't be perfect again.) But nothing about that example is a reason to eliminate the social programs that this family benefits from. You seem to harshly judge this couple, saying | Story#1 only makes me feel contempt. I think that there should be heavy pressure put on that couple to get their shit together. |
Um, huh? He's working, she's taking care of 7 kids - that sounds like a hell of a lot of pressure already. It sounds like they are in the "gap" - the problem place where technically you can make just enough money to not qualify for most social programs, but if you do that you'll actually be working harder and under more stress for less. Again, that's a problem with the system. It is CRAZY to expect people who are in the gap to not take advantage of social programs, and frankly, pretty pompous to judge people who do if you don't have that problem. I sure as hell couldn't have contempt for anyone in that situation considering how much I've benefited from growing up a nice, comfortable middle class lifestyle and having parents and other relatives to depend on for assistance when I've had financial problems pop up.
As to why poor people have more kids: Social mobility in America isn't as easy as many people seem to think it is. The better off you start out, the more advantages you have for maintaining that position. Having and raising a child is one of the most exciting and personally fulfilling things a person can do with their life, and it is one thing that being poor isn't a barrier to. The drive to procreate is pretty damn strong. A better question is to ask why middle class people are having less and less, despite the drive to procreate. I'd say it is because they can afford other things in their life that give them fulfillment, and the more money you have, the more you are obligated to spend on your kids, thus taking away from what you can spend on yourself. So really, middle class people just have less kids because we want to stay comfortably middle class. And poor people have more because it makes their lives feel a bit more important and fulfilling. It seems pretty shitty to judge people for those kinds of personal decisions, especially if you aren't in their position. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 13:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone, even though I don't think the example is relevant to the discussion of policies regarding social programs in the U.S., I keep thinking about the example of "bad" that you gave above, and I'd like to respond to it as an isolated question of ethical behavior. You wrote: | There is a couple I know who have been together for nearly two decades. They have seven children. They have never been married because if they did they would lose their benefits. Dad avoids paying child support by working cash jobs. |
Why the hell would a couple, where the man is working and the woman is taking care of 7 children, get married if it would mean losing valuable benefits that they use to maintain their family? Why would the man quit the job he has and take on a job making less money? You seem to think the principle of the matter (your principles, mind you) are more important than the practical considerations of these people and how they live their lives. I have known a couple couples that didn't get married because the benefits the mother gets as a single mother outweigh any benefits that legal marriage would provide. That seems to be a problem with the system, not a problem with their personal ethics. And the system is always going to be in need of some reform because, as humans, we're never getting things perfect (and hell, even if we do get something perfect, eventually circumstances will change so that it won't be perfect again.) But nothing about that example is a reason to eliminate the social programs that this family benefits from. You seem to harshly judge this couple, saying | Story#1 only makes me feel contempt. I think that there should be heavy pressure put on that couple to get their shit together. |
Um, huh? He's working, she's taking care of 7 kids - that sounds like a hell of a lot of pressure already. It sounds like they are in the "gap" - the problem place where technically you can make just enough money to not qualify for most social programs, but if you do that you'll actually be working harder and under more stress for less. Again, that's a problem with the system. It is CRAZY to expect people who are in the gap to not take advantage of social programs, and frankly, pretty pompous to judge people who do if you don't have that problem. I sure as hell couldn't have contempt for anyone in that situation considering how much I've benefited from growing up a nice, comfortable middle class lifestyle and having parents and other relatives to depend on for assistance when I've had financial problems pop up.
As to why poor people have more kids: Social mobility in America isn't as easy as many people seem to think it is. The better off you start out, the more advantages you have for maintaining that position. Having and raising a child is one of the most exciting and personally fulfilling things a person can do with their life, and it is one thing that being poor isn't a barrier to. The drive to procreate is pretty damn strong. A better question is to ask why middle class people are having less and less, despite the drive to procreate. I'd say it is because they can afford other things in their life that give them fulfillment, and the more money you have, the more you are obligated to spend on your kids, thus taking away from what you can spend on yourself. So really, middle class people just have less kids because we want to stay comfortably middle class. And poor people have more because it makes their lives feel a bit more important and fulfilling. It seems pretty shitty to judge people for those kinds of personal decisions, especially if you aren't in their position.
|
marfknox,
First I'd like to say that it sucks that I finally get to interact with a female on this board and only my asshole side is being presented. Really, I can be a pretty nice guy when I want to be.
That being said, now comes probably the most assholish thing that I've said here.
These people SHOULD NOT be reproducing if they do not have the $$ to care for the children without public assistance. I don't give a shit about reproductive rights. I think reproductive resposibilities are more important. We all know how babies are made. We all know how to prevent them too. Sure they have the right to have as many as they want but they better damn well be able to make the money to care for them. Another thing I forgot to mention about example #1 is that the father has a different address on file with social services so that they do not find out that he and Mom are together. It was a conscious decision on their part to have these kids. They were not accidents. I don't actually know what could be done about them having so many kids but I do know it pisses me off that they have them on purpose with full intention of having ME (and the rest of the state) pay for them. It is not my or anyone elses responsibility to make sure that they feel "important" or "fullfilled". Screw them.
You are right that I judge them. I have no god to do the judging for me so it is all up to me. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 13:16:49 [Permalink]
|
ebone asked:
| So exactly how do you propose to get accurate, objective evidence on how people abuse or manipulate the system? |
It is very possible to get accurate info via scientific survey on topics like these. When people are assured of anonymity/immunity, and they believe they are getting it, they will answer honestly.
Why don't we have a good set of statistics on welfare fraud to base our decisions on? Because the conservatives are only interested in scoring political points with people incapable of thinking outside of what annecdotal evidence tells them. Everyone has heard some jacked up story about some mexican (or black) woman who just pops out babies so they can keep getting welfare! Add in a politician who doesn't give a fuck but wants your vote, and they are happy to reinforce the racist stereotype, happy to punish poor people to get your vote.
The only actual stat for any US welfare fraud I can find is one from unemployment in 2002. 1.9% reported as involving fraud, but it doesn't say crap about what specific fraud. If you fill out the application wrong, it is technically fraudulent. No idea what percent of that 1.9% is attributed to clerical errors.
I have no idea what the actual numbers on welfare fraud are, but I don't believe they are high, certainly not high enough to justify the level of outrage that people seem to have about the topic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 13:42:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
| Everyone has heard some jacked up story about some mexican (or black) woman who just pops out babies so they can keep getting welfare! |
Well around here it is the white people who do these things. Would you like to meet some? I can introduce you. That is probably part of the reason that I am not racist. I know way more white people that I hate than I do any other races. I have developed the ability to hate people on an individual basis rather than ethnicity. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 13:54:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Dude
| Everyone has heard some jacked up story about some mexican (or black) woman who just pops out babies so they can keep getting welfare! |
Well around here it is the white people who do these things. Would you like to meet some? I can introduce you. That is probably part of the reason that I am not racist. I know way more white people that I hate than I do any other races. I have developed the ability to hate people on an individual basis rather than ethnicity.
|
Race is only tangentially important to my point. But... the only people I know for certain have committed some kind of welfare fraud are white (some retarded family member). The stories I hear from white people, however, are always about some non-white person doing the fraud. White people make up the majority of voters, so politicians are quick to play on their concerns even if those concerns are total bullshit. In that process our media gets a hold of this stuff, reports the gossip as fact, and the whole vicious circle of misinformation maintains itself.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 14:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Dude
| Everyone has heard some jacked up story about some mexican (or black) woman who just pops out babies so they can keep getting welfare! |
Well around here it is the white people who do these things. Would you like to meet some? I can introduce you. That is probably part of the reason that I am not racist. I know way more white people that I hate than I do any other races. I have developed the ability to hate people on an individual basis rather than ethnicity.
|
Race is only tangentially important to my point. But... the only people I know for certain have committed some kind of welfare fraud are white (some retarded family member). The stories I hear from white people, however, are always about some non-white person doing the fraud. White people make up the majority of voters, so politicians are quick to play on their concerns even if those concerns are total bullshit. In that process our media gets a hold of this stuff, reports the gossip as fact, and the whole vicious circle of misinformation maintains itself.
|
Agreed.
Oh how satisfied I was when my cousin got busted for disability fraud. $20,000 that sumnanabeotch had to pay back!  |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 14:57:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
There is a couple I know who have been together for nearly two decades. They have seven children. They have never been married because if they did they would lose their benefits. Dad avoids paying child support by working cash jobs...
...Another thing I forgot to mention about example #1 is that the father has a different address on file with social services so that they do not find out that he and Mom are together. It was a conscious decision on their part to have these kids. They were not accidents. I don't actually know what could be done about them having so many kids but I do know it pisses me off that they have them on purpose with full intention of having ME (and the rest of the state) pay for them. |
So they figured out how to game the system, and you're annoyed by it. Jealous? 
Seriously, are they better off than you? Or are they living in a shit-hole compared to you? If you weren't worried about your integrity, would you switch places with them by choice?| Story#1 only makes me feel contempt. I think that there should be heavy pressure put on that couple to get their shit together. |
Can they do so? Could the parents go out tomorrow and land jobs that would not only match the income level they've got now, but enough more to pay for day-care or after-school care for the kids while they work? Or do these people have problems which might preclude that, like a lack of education, an absence of salable skills, or mental illness? Some people really can't "get their shit together" no matter how hard they try, because life's little daily lotteries of circumstance keep screwing them over.| Which brings up another question. Why do these poor people squirt out so many damn kids? Rubbers are much cheaper than raising a kid. I've managed to live this long without knocking anyone up! Why can't they? |
Well, marf gave one answer, but I think it boils down to genetic security. People in bad situations with an uncertain future hedge their genetic bets by pumping out lots of kids since the odds of each child growing up to reproduce aren't as good as they are for people with high security. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 15:58:48 [Permalink]
|
originally posted by Dave
So they figured out how to game the system, and you're annoyed by it. Jealous?
Seriously, are they better off than you? Or are they living in a shit-hole compared to you? If you weren't worried about your integrity, would you switch places with them by choice? |
Jealous? Hell no.
They have a comparably priced home in a comparably priced neighborhood. It has a lot more bedrooms than mine but I am in a semi-rural area so I've got acreage.
Would I switch places? Hell no. I am not particularly fond of children. I don't like being around more than two at a time. ( My wife says I am becoming a crabby old man)
| Can they do so? Could the parents go out tomorrow and land jobs that would not only match the income level they've got now, but enough more to pay for day-care or after-school care for the kids while they work? Or do these people have problems which might preclude that, like a lack of education, an absence of salable skills, or mental illness? Some people really can't "get their shit together" no matter how hard they try, because life's little daily lotteries of circumstance keep screwing them over. |
Probably not. Raising seven kids is expensive.
One thing about "life's little daily lotteries of circumstance" is that with proper preparation they can be dealt with.
| Well, marf gave one answer, but I think it boils down to genetic security. People in bad situations with an uncertain future hedge their genetic bets by pumping out lots of kids since the odds of each child growing up to reproduce aren't as good as they are for people with high security. |
Charles Darwin explained this quite well in " On the Origin of Species". I get it.
So why should the rest of the state's population flip the bill because this couple's genetic dispostion tells them to reproduce more? My genetic disposition tells me to reproduce less. Is this fair? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 16:11:48 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | That being said, now comes probably the most assholish thing that I've said here. |
Well at least you're aware of it. ;-)
| These people SHOULD NOT be reproducing if they do not have the $$ to care for the children without public assistance. |
Obviously such a thing is totally unenforceable, but from the context of the conversation I gather that you are not suggesting that we do anything to stop them, but instead we just judge them sternly. I gotta say, I think a enjoy this sort of secular moralizing about as much as I enjoy religious moralizing. I'm getting an image of the old man across the street from me going on about "The problem with these young people today is that they don't want to get married. They don't want to commit..." | I don't give a shit about reproductive rights... Sure they have the right to have as many as they want but they better damn well be able to make the money to care for them. |
So which is it - do you care about their reproductive rights or not? You seem to care enough that these rights are protected by law.
| Another thing I forgot to mention about example #1 is that the father has a different address on file with social services..." |
Yeah, I understood you the first time - they are intentionally gaming the system. Considering that the system is obviously inadequately serving their needs, good for them. | ...with full intention of having ME (and the rest of the state) pay for them. |
Somehow people with more money and a better lifestyle bitching about having to pay some small percentage of what are already relatively low taxes (compared with the rest of the industrialized world) to support people who have less money and a poorer lifestyle seems, well, petty. I feel like I need to find a really really tiny violin. I mean, I know some people game the system and I also pay for it. But I live in a friggin' 5 bedroom house with my awesome hubby and kid, all because I was fortunate enough to be born mentally stable, intellectually above average, physically healthy, into a generous middle class, happy family, and I'm lucky in love. I'd be a real ass to whine about people like you describe. I can't have contempt for them. And I can't even have contempt for the inadequate system, because I know most of the people involved in developing and running social system mean well. But we're human. We're flawed. Even at our best we never get it just right.| It is not my or anyone elses responsibility to make sure that they feel "important" or "fullfilled". Screw them. |
Obviously not a humanist. Look, you don't live in some bubble. If you feel fulfilled, it isn't just because of something inside of you. That is necessary, but not sufficient. We are a social animal. The very concept of ownership, the idea that you deserve the money you get or that it is even yours is all just part of a big social construct. I will never understand why so many people are fine with social constructs the result in what is obviously not a totally fair and just distribution of resources in the private sector (sometimes people even act like those constructs are sacred or somehow part of some natural fabric of the universe outside of the human condition) but they get all pissy about the way government interacts with the society. You say that people who happen to be poor in our society should not have children, even if they are deeply driven and will feel much happier and more fulfilled. You base this entirely on devotion to what is an ultimately arbitrary set of ideas about ownership and responsibility. How the hell is that different from religious judgement? After all, you aren't explaining how these people gaming the system does more harm than good it does. Do the pennies they siphon out of your and everyone else's tax dollars really do more harm than the good done by them being able to better financially support themselves and the 7 children I'm sure they love? Really think about it, are you judging them for any good reason? Or is just based on your own personal ideology of what is right and wrong? Is it possible that you just don't like these people personally? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 18:05:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| Obviously such a thing is totally unenforceable, but from the context of the conversation I gather that you are not suggesting that we do anything to stop them, but instead we just judge them sternly. I gotta say, I think a enjoy this sort of secular moralizing about as much as I enjoy religious moralizing. I'm getting an image of the old man across the street from me going on about "The problem with these young people today is that they don't want to get married. They don't want to commit..." |
Yes, it is unenforcable. Like I said I don't know what to do about it yet but it does piss me off.
So which is it - do you care about their reproductive rights or not? You seem to care enough that these rights are protected by law.
|
I think that the responsibilities should come before the rights. Of course I think that a womans reproductive rights should be protected by law though. Hence my abortion stance.... I think there should be more of them!
| Yeah, I understood you the first time - they are intentionally gaming the system. Considering that the system is obviously inadequately serving their needs, good for them. |
I really cannot understand how you can say "good for them". Are you under the impression that the system was designed so that people can have as many babies as they want without having to actually worry about paying for them?
| Somehow people with more money and a better lifestyle bitching about having to pay some small percentage of what are already relatively low taxes (compared with the rest of the industrialized world) to support people who have less money and a poorer lifestyle seems, well, petty. I feel like I need to find a really really tiny violin. I mean, I know some people game the system and I also pay for it. But I live in a friggin' 5 bedroom house with my awesome hubby and kid, all because I was fortunate enough to be born mentally stable, intellectually above average, physically healthy, into a generous middle class, happy family, and I'm lucky in love. I'd be a real ass to whine about people like you describe. I can't have contempt for them. And I can't even have contempt for the inadequate system, because I know most of the people involved in developing and running social system mean well. But we're human. We're flawed. Even at our best we never get it just right. |
Do you think that I just stumbled upon my lifestyle? Just went tripping through life and ended up doing well?(don't get the impression that I'm rich or anything though) Everything I have is a direct result of my hard work and (sometimes) smart financial handling. Why should I have sympathy for able-bodied people who do not handle their business?
| Obviously not a humanist. Look, you don't live in some bubble. If you feel fulfilled, it isn't just because of something inside of you. That is necessary, but not sufficient. We are a social animal. The very concept of ownership, the idea that you deserve the money you get or that it is even yours is all just part of a big social construct. I will never understand why so many people are fine with social constructs the result in what is obviously not a totally fair and just distribution of resources in the private sector (sometimes people even act like those constructs are sacred or somehow part of some natural fabric of the universe outside of the human condition) but they get all pissy about the way government interacts with the society. You say that people who happen to be poor in our society should not have children, even if they are deeply driven and will feel much happier and more fulfilled. You base this entirely on devotion to what is an ultimately arbitrary set of ideas about ownership and responsibility. How the hell is that different from religious judgement? After all, you aren't explaining how these people gaming the system does more harm than good it does. Do the pennies they siphon out of your and everyone else's tax dollars really do more harm than the good done by them being able to better financially support themselves and the 7 children I'm sure they love? Really think about it, are you judging them for any good reason? Or is just based on your own personal ideology of what is right and wrong? Is it possible that you just don't like these people personally? |
(bolding mine)
Fair?.... Fair!? Fair is when you take home what you earn. You know the old saying " you reap what you sow"? We obviously have a very different idea of what fair is. I do beleive that " All men (people) are created equal". That does not mean that they all end up equal. Are you asking me to not judge them because the money they siphon is mere "pennies"? It's the principal of the thing. Are you suggesting that I should have some sort of open mind about what is right and wrong? Nonsense.
I must clarify that the position I am currently taking has only to do with able-bodied people. Not people with physical or mental disabilites. I also have no problem with helping people who have come into unforseen circumstances. People with integrity will only use the benefits until they are back on their feet.
marfknox, It seems that you have no problem with people turning government benefits into a lifestyle. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 19:55:27 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | Hence my abortion stance.... I think there should be more of them! |
What a flippant remark. That sort of talk is exactly what prevents anti-abortion and pro-choice people from working together. Abortions suck. I know a lot of women who have had one, and none of them were happy about it. They all just wanted to not get pregnant in the first place. Abortions are the crappy solution to a much crappier problem, and hopefully some day our society will get to the point where they are no longer necessary. Anyone who is an advocate of woman's reproductive rights should also be an advocate of women's overall well being. What we need more of is education about and access to birth control, thus reducing the number of abortions. This is what groups like Planned Parenthood really do the most of - which is why everyone, even people against abortion, should support them.
| I really cannot understand how you can say "good for them". Are you under the impression that the system was designed so that people can have as many babies as they want without having to actually worry about paying for them? |
I can say "good for them" because from what you have described, the alternative is them having less funds to maintain their family. How the hell would that be good for them or their kids? And the only complaint you have is that some teeny tiny portion of the 2% of your tax dollars that actually goes to families and children welfare goes to them while they are technically breaking rules. As for how the welfare system was or should be designed, the reality is that people will have as many kids as they want. It is a fact that people with less means and security tend to have more children, so it stands to reason that if you want people to have less kids then design a system that helps the poorest people maintain a stable livelihood. All you are doing is throwing out personal judgement and moral platitudes. What good does that do? Thank goodness you aren't a policy maker!
| Do you think that I just stumbled upon my lifestyle? Just went tripping through life and ended up doing well?(don't get the impression that I'm rich or anything though) Everything I have is a direct result of my hard work and (sometimes) smart financial handling. Why should I have sympathy for able-bodied people who do not handle their business? |
Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. I am not questioning that you have worked hard and made smart financial choices. But to give total credit to your own personal merit is absurd. You obviously benefited from working within a system. You happened to live in an economic system that you are apparently good at navigating. You shouldn't take that for granted, lots of smart, good people have really shitty financial or business sense, and is that any reason to judge them when they suffer for it? What's more, your mental health and ability is not only dependent on your physiological condition, but on your environmental circumstances. One of my friends whose been unemployed on and off for over two years has a diagnosed mental disease, but since he doesn't qualify for any aid, he's gone untreated all this time, and that DEFINITELY hurts his changes of finding permanent employment. Bottom line, the people in your life and a certain amount of luck always plays a role in how successful any individual ends up.
| Fair?.... Fair!? Fair is when you take home what you earn. |
Do you read my posts? What you earn is determined by an arbitrary social construct. Is it fair that a CEO earns millions while a day care center caretaker earns $10/hr? Yes, no, maybe, all depends on what arbitrary social construct you personal prioritize. But any way about it, it is arbitrary.
| You know the old saying " you reap what you sow"? We obviously have a very different idea of what fair is. I do beleive that " All men (people) are created equal". That does not mean that they all end up equal. Are you asking me to not judge them because the money they siphon is mere "pennies"? It's the principal of the thing. |
Yes, and that is the problem. As far as I can tell, you are an ideologue. You care more about ideas that real life consequences. Families break up over money problems. Money stress is a leading cause of divorce and stress in this country. But to you, the survival of a marriage even with children involved, and the quality of life for a family is less important that your arbitrary principles. At least religious people argue that their principles are ordained by God. As a secularist, you must know your principles are arbitrary, and yet you dismiss practical concerns and real life consequences. That is totally bizarre to me.
| Are you suggesting that I should have some sort of open mind about what is right and wrong? Nonsense. |
Are you claiming that right and wrong are objective? If so, please back up that claim. Please show me how your principles in this matter are THE right ones. And if you don't believe in universal, objective principles, then give some REASONS why your principles are superior to mine. Because I've already explained why I think mine are superior (the family is better off gaming the system, while the supposed "harm" they do to taxpayers is so small per capita that it is negligible.)
| I must clarify that the position I am currently taking has only to do with able-bodied people. Not people with physical or mental disabilites. |
You have just waded into very murky waters. Lots of people who have mental disabilities are high functioning enough to not qualify as disabled, and yet their condition deeply impairs their ability to make wise choices.
| I also have no problem with helping people who have come into unforseen circumstances. People with integrity will only use the benefits until they are back on their feet. |
In a large society there will never be a system designed that can avoid all abuses. So I don't understand why you seem to obsess over these anecdotes. When it comes to policies, I don't care about your personal morality or your ideals. I care about facts and evidence, and practical solutions to clear social ills. Don't tell me something is "bad" because it violates your precious, personal ideals. Show me the damage. Show me people who become violent or victims of violence, families broken up, increased physical abuse of peoples' own bodies through alcohol and drug use. Show me a 70% obesity rate among teenagers and rising rates of diabetes in children and teens (That's what it is in the impoverished areas of North Philly.) Show me full-time working men who drop dead of heart attacks before they even get close to the age of retirement. Because it is a FACT that all of that is associated with poverty. So you can go and blame poor people for all these problems and tell them to get some "integrity" and "get their act together". Or you can realize that poverty increases the frequency of otherwise good and intelligent people making unethical and stupid decisions.
| marfknox, It seems that you have no problem with people turning government benefits into a lifestyle. |
When you give me an example of someone living better off welfare than a person making a real living wage (not in the damn gap where they are constantly on the edge of falling into poverty) then I'll say that we're inappropriately doling out government benefits. I've seen a lot of people who are poor and a lot of people who use social services, and despite the aid, every one of them still dealt with financial stresses and none of them come close to enjoying the many luxuries of my middle class relatives.
Look, social security and Medicare are forms of welfare. They are explicitly designed to provide a better lifestyle for elderly people who have retired from the work force. Most of those people can still work. But we as a society have decided that after a certain age people have paid enough dues and deserve to really retire, even if they haven't earned the means to do it without government aid. So if you support social security and Medicare, then you, too, support turning government benefits into a lifestyle. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 22:54:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
They have a comparably priced home in a comparably priced neighborhood. |
Comparable to what? Other two-parent, seven-kid families?| It has a lot more bedrooms than mine but I am in a semi-rural area so I've got acreage. |
And how do you defend that acreage? Have you hired some thugs to patrol it while you're working or sleeping, or are you slurping at the public trough of county services like police, firemen and title-deed clerks?| Probably not. Raising seven kids is expensive. |
I've looked at how much I could get out of unemployment and Social Security, and said, "how could I possibly live on that?!" I haven't yet done so for Welfare or other like programs. How much does one get, per child?
One thing I'm not going to do is begrudge a child their parents. If raising seven kids is expensive, and they're getting public assistance to do so, then I'm all for it. Because the alternative is seven kids who are starving or going without shoes. And it's not the fault of the children that their parents are assholes who figured out how to game the system. So long as the benefits are being used to keep the kids and parents fed, healthy and clothed, that'd fine by me (if the parents are gaming the system in order to live extravagant lifestyles at the expense of their kids, that's a very different animal).
Sure, the kids could grow up to do the same thing their parents are doing, but that's far from certain. The three guys I work with on a daily basis all were on welfare as children, but grew up to be productive, law-abiding and tax-paying members of society.| So why should the rest of the state's population flip the bill because this couple's genetic dispostion tells them to reproduce more? My genetic disposition tells me to reproduce less. Is this fair? |
If you don't think it's fair, then petition your legislators to regulate child-bearing. Get them to mandate parenting licenses. Arguably, parenting is much, much more risky (especially for the child) than driving, and we force people to take a test for the latter. Why should parenting be considered a right in the first place?
But I digress. Again, it's not a child's fault that his/her parents made unwise choices, so is it fair for that child to be shortchanged? (This is the ultimate is life's little lotteries - something a recent NPR commentator dubbed the "Ovarian Lottery" - and not something that anyone can prepare for, since a fetus can't say, "well, my parents are jerks, so I'd better start looking for a way out before I've taken my first breath.") A couple of childless adults on welfare wouldn't be living in a comparably priced home with lots of bedrooms. The money is supposed to be for keeping disadvantaged kids above a certain threshold of disadvantaged-ness, not a reward for the fecundity of the parents.
But if you're concerned with fairness, then you should turn in family #1 with an anonymous phone-call or letter. Nothing's better than visits from government officials to make one try to get one's shit together. And if the parents wind up imprisoned for cheating, and the kids in a group home waiting to be split up among seven different foster families, well that just serves 'em right, right?
And you should urge father #2 to go ahead and collect whatever benefits he's entitled to under the law (that's fair under current law, yes?), since doing so wouldn't impact his integrity one little bit, but might lighten his load enough so that both he and his kids can enjoy your company on the weekends. Seems to me that a man who's been paying into the system for ages deserves to take some out when circumstances suggest it, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
‘War on Poverty’ — Repug style?
