As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Social Programs and Government Spending and, you know, stuff.

ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
edited December 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
mrdobalina wrote: »
ElJeffe wrote: »
mrdobalina wrote: »
Qingu wrote: »
They believe that rich people "deserve" to be rich. They do not have the same class-conscious, egalitarian views as us.

I think it's similar to how people in primitive tribes and chiefdoms have a tendency to give the most respect to the person who accumulates and shows off the most shiny trinkets.

You know Qingu, that's a good point. True Conservatism is egalitarian in nature, from the perspective of opportunity and options. I assume your egalitarian leanings are on the outcome side of things, neh?

Does true conservatism consider initial conditions when defining "egalitarian"? Because if not, it's sort of like assuming that all linear functions with slope M are equal for all values of X without taking into account the Y-intercept.

...

Wow, that was dorky.

I have no clue what you are saying here, and I don't mean the math. It seems like you're...criticizing the concept of Conservatism because what it entails or purports to be and reality do not match. Correct?

That's a failing of Liberalism as well then. Equal outcomes are not reality either, true? At issue is whether the core aspiration of the society should be based on greater equality of outcomes or greater equality of access.

It has nothing to do with equal outcomes, though. Can you really say that Paris Hilton and Ghetto Joe have the same opportunities available to them? (Hint: No.) You apply the same laws to them in exactly the same way, and yet Paris is pretty much guaranteed to be super fucking rich for all time with little effort while Ghetto Joe will have to work his ass off to have even a chance at being financially comfortable. You talk about equality of opportunities, but it's pretty laughable to say that Paris and Joe have anything resembling equality of opportunity. Paris has access to options Joe can pretty much never hope to, unless he is both exceptionally smart and exceptionally lucky.

The idea of government intervention isn't about dropping Paris down and boosting Joe up so they wind up with the same financial outcome. The idea is, "Okay, this chick is going to do fine no matter what, but maybe Joe could benefit from some scholarships to a decent school, or something." Or: "Joe can't realistically go to night school because he was stuck with two kids after his wife died and now he can't afford a sitter every night. Maybe we should subsidize some child care for him."

Honestly, I don't know what constitutes True Conservatism as regards things like subsidies for the poor. I would like to think that your average conservative is not wholly against those kinds of actions, though maybe I'm wrong. I know I'm not. I don't think you are, either, even though it pretty clearly involves a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. So I guess you're not a True Conservative, either? Do the True Conservatives and True Scotsmen get together on Friday nights and go out for drinks?

Really, though, the best argument for programs directed at the poor has nothing to do with egalitarianism or fairness or whatnot. The best argument is that aiding the poor helps everybody in the end, by increasing social stability and boosting the economy overall. I guess maybe that qualifies as "worrying about outcomes". I can't really find the harm, though, in choosing the course of action that makes everyone better off.

I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
ElJeffe on
«1345

Posts

  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    It has nothing to do with equal outcomes, though. Can you really say that Paris Hilton and Ghetto Joe have the same opportunities available to them? (Hint: No.) You apply the same laws to them in exactly the same way, and yet Paris is pretty much guaranteed to be super fucking rich for all time with little effort while Ghetto Joe will have to work his ass off to have even a chance at being financially comfortable. You talk about equality of opportunities, but it's pretty laughable to say that Paris and Joe have anything resembling equality of opportunity. Paris has access to options Joe can pretty much never hope to, unless he is both exceptionally smart and exceptionally lucky.

    The idea of government intervention isn't about dropping Paris down and boosting Joe up so they wind up with the same financial outcome. The idea is, "Okay, this chick is going to do fine no matter what, but maybe Joe could benefit from some scholarships to a decent school, or something." Or: "Joe can't realistically go to night school because he was stuck with two kids after his wife died and now he can't afford a sitter every night. Maybe we should subsidize some child care for him."

    Honestly, I don't know what constitutes True Conservatism as regards things like subsidies for the poor. I would like to think that your average conservative is not wholly against those kinds of actions, though maybe I'm wrong. I know I'm not. I don't think you are, either, even though it pretty clearly involves a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. So I guess you're not a True Conservative, either? Do the True Conservatives and True Scotsmen get together on Friday nights and go out for drinks?

    Really, though, the best argument for programs directed at the poor has nothing to do with egalitarianism or fairness or whatnot. The best argument is that aiding the poor helps everybody in the end, by increasing social stability and boosting the economy overall. I guess maybe that qualifies as "worrying about outcomes". I can't really find the harm, though, in choosing the course of action that makes everyone better off.

    You're choice of examples leaves much to be desired. In a nation of 305 million, putting Paris Hilton (or her ilk) in the mix is a Red Herring of epic proportions. We all start from different places in our lives, and while she may never work a day in her life, and while you may have been born in an upper-middle-class family, and I might have had blue-collar parents whose biggest success was owning a starter home, and Mr. Joe Ghetto's mom is a crack whore, the starting point for societal aims should focus on making sure there are no government-supported institutional constraints towards social mobility.

    Can everyone here vote?
    Is everyone protected under the same laws?
    Does one person have more or less rights than the others?

    These are they types (though not an exhaustive list ) of questions that should be looked at. You propose "Maybe Joe needs a scholarship". Maybe he does. The question isn't "can we help Joe be more like Paris?", but rather, is there anything actively stopping Joe from doing well that falls under the government's area of responsiblity? I don't buy that we should subsidize his childcare, or give him cheaper school access than his neighbor, or a large number of other social engineering concepts that can be floated around.

    The most difficult part of your post was
    "The best argument is that aiding the poor helps everybody in the end, by increasing social stability and boosting the economy overall. I guess maybe that qualifies as "worrying about outcomes". I can't really find the harm, though, in choosing the course of action that makes everyone better off."

    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?

    But I think we're way off topic here.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Rather, is there anything actively stopping Joe from doing well? That falls under the government's area of responsiblity.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?

    If you are asserting that public aid "ensnares" people, I think that obligates you to explain exactly what you mean by "ensnarement," how it is that private charity is somehow exempt from this (or if it is not, why that is okay), and why such ensnarement is to be feared more than privation, starvation and death on the part of those being ensnared. Ideally this would all be backed up with data from the real world.

    Because otherwise this looks a lot like a nonsense rhetorical smokescreen.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    It has nothing to do with equal outcomes, though. Can you really say that Paris Hilton and Ghetto Joe have the same opportunities available to them? (Hint: No.) You apply the same laws to them in exactly the same way, and yet Paris is pretty much guaranteed to be super fucking rich for all time with little effort while Ghetto Joe will have to work his ass off to have even a chance at being financially comfortable. You talk about equality of opportunities, but it's pretty laughable to say that Paris and Joe have anything resembling equality of opportunity. Paris has access to options Joe can pretty much never hope to, unless he is both exceptionally smart and exceptionally lucky.

    The idea of government intervention isn't about dropping Paris down and boosting Joe up so they wind up with the same financial outcome. The idea is, "Okay, this chick is going to do fine no matter what, but maybe Joe could benefit from some scholarships to a decent school, or something." Or: "Joe can't realistically go to night school because he was stuck with two kids after his wife died and now he can't afford a sitter every night. Maybe we should subsidize some child care for him."

    Honestly, I don't know what constitutes True Conservatism as regards things like subsidies for the poor. I would like to think that your average conservative is not wholly against those kinds of actions, though maybe I'm wrong. I know I'm not. I don't think you are, either, even though it pretty clearly involves a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. So I guess you're not a True Conservative, either? Do the True Conservatives and True Scotsmen get together on Friday nights and go out for drinks?

    Really, though, the best argument for programs directed at the poor has nothing to do with egalitarianism or fairness or whatnot. The best argument is that aiding the poor helps everybody in the end, by increasing social stability and boosting the economy overall. I guess maybe that qualifies as "worrying about outcomes". I can't really find the harm, though, in choosing the course of action that makes everyone better off.

    You're choice of examples leaves much to be desired. In a nation of 305 million, putting Paris Hilton (or her ilk) in the mix is a Red Herring of epic proportions. We all start from different places in our lives, and while she may never work a day in her life, and while you may have been born in an upper-middle-class family, and I might have had blue-collar parents whose biggest success was owning a starter home, and Mr. Joe Ghetto's mom is a crack whore, the starting point for societal aims should focus on making sure there are no government-supported institutional constraints towards social mobility.

    Can everyone here vote?
    Is everyone protected under the same laws?
    Does one person have more or less rights than the others?

    These are they types (though not an exhaustive list ) of questions that should be looked at. You propose "Maybe Joe needs a scholarship". Maybe he does. The question isn't "can we help Joe be more like Paris?", but rather, is there anything actively stopping Joe from doing well that falls under the government's area of responsiblity? I don't buy that we should subsidize his childcare, or give him cheaper school access than his neighbor, or a large number of other social engineering concepts that can be floated around.


    The most difficult part of your post was
    "The best argument is that aiding the poor helps everybody in the end, by increasing social stability and boosting the economy overall. I guess maybe that qualifies as "worrying about outcomes". I can't really find the harm, though, in choosing the course of action that makes everyone better off."

    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?

    But I think we're way off topic here
    .


    God this post is so full of bullshit my eyes have turned brown. You don't think poorly funded education is a barrier to Joe's social mobility? Because Joe if he's poor and lives in a poor neighborhood, doesn't have access to the education opportunities which create social mobility. Dude starts off having to work 20x harder than someone in a middle class just have access to social mobility, and this isn't an active barrier that the government should help alleviate?

    You look at this with such black and white tinted goggles. As if the only thing that possibly limits equal rights, opportunities, and freedoms are men in black suits telling you what to do.

    Lilnoobs on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?
    This sounds like a good moral argument for redistributing wealth from rich people who give their children "entitlements."

    Qingu on
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?
    This sounds like a good moral argument for redistributing wealth from rich people who give their children "entitlements."

    No, what he says is true. Nobody wants to work hard to make $100,000 when they can sit back and let the government take care of them at $10,000 and live in the ghetto. That sounds like paradise to me.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?
    This sounds like a good moral argument for redistributing wealth from rich people who give their children "entitlements."

    No, what he says is true. Nobody wants to work hard to make $100,000 when they can sit back and let the government take care of them at $10,000 and live in the ghetto. That sounds like paradise to me.

    Try it some time then, it doesn't look like a paradise to me. I watched an interesting documentary on the Bloods and the Crips a while back, which while going through their history, also ended up giving quite a bit of history and context to LA's race relations over the years. One of the prevailing comments that seemed to come up again and again, is that in almost all cases, a young black man in East LA had/has practically zero opportunities to better himself. There are no jobs, such that any man hoping to feed himself or his family usually has to resort to peddling drugs or other illegal means in order to do so.

    Now of course this kind of comment was coming from the gang members themselves, who had every reason to look for excuses for their behavior and lifestyle, but there certainly was a grain of truth to what they were saying, which the movie showed very well.

    If you reaaallly want to be cynical and crass about it, it makes more sense to give the poor and downtrodden aid since it serves to pacify them and keep them from revolting en mass.

    Edit....damnit you were being sarcastic weren't you....

    Also just saw on Digg that the AP accidently released her press requirements, and they are hilarious. She also has apparently started charging 15 bucks for a picture with her, and they confiscate all cameras and cell phones at the entrance to her book signings. Aaaah, capatalism.

    Dark_Side on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?
    This sounds like a good moral argument for redistributing wealth from rich people who give their children "entitlements."

    No, what he says is true. Nobody wants to work hard to make $100,000 when they can sit back and let the government take care of them at $10,000 and live in the ghetto. That sounds like paradise to me.

    I find that true in some cases.

    I see the ghetto and trailer park fabulous all the time. Neighborhood and home itself looks like shit in a hell hole and they're all riding in pimped out rides and buying big screen televisions.

    Not universal. Probably not even a majority. But it happens. Not everyone cares about succeeding. Just enough to get by.

    Funny thing is that now that Kid Rock has made it cool for rednecks to listen to rap, even the most backasswards hicks have a system in their ride, bumping terrible music.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    I see the ghetto and trailer park fabulous all the time. Neighborhood and home itself looks like shit in a hell hole and they're all riding in pimped out rides and buying big screen televisions.

    Not universal. Probably not even a majority. But it happens. Not everyone cares about succeeding. Just enough to get by.

    It's poor-man's pride. They can't afford to be truly affluent, so they buy the flashy things that'll let them feel good about themselves which they can show off to others. Which is why you'll see broke college kids using milk crates for furniture, but still have a rockin' sound system hooked up to their big screen TV.

    TheMarshal on
  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    I see the ghetto and trailer park fabulous all the time. Neighborhood and home itself looks like shit in a hell hole and they're all riding in pimped out rides and buying big screen televisions.

    Not universal. Probably not even a majority. But it happens. Not everyone cares about succeeding. Just enough to get by.

    It's poor-man's pride. They can't afford to be truly affluent, so they buy the flashy things that'll let them feel good about themselves which they can show off to others. Which is why you'll see broke college kids using milk crates for furniture, but still have a rockin' sound system hooked up to their big screen TV.

    Too poor to paint, too proud to whitewash.

    I mean, yeah, you sell stuff to a pawn shop...but you don't buy shit from a pawn shop unless you're buying your shit back once you're better off.

    Shadowen on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    I see the ghetto and trailer park fabulous all the time. Neighborhood and home itself looks like shit in a hell hole and they're all riding in pimped out rides and buying big screen televisions.

    Not universal. Probably not even a majority. But it happens. Not everyone cares about succeeding. Just enough to get by.

    It's poor-man's pride. They can't afford to be truly affluent, so they buy the flashy things that'll let them feel good about themselves which they can show off to others. Which is why you'll see broke college kids using milk crates for furniture, but still have a rockin' sound system hooked up to their big screen TV.

    That goes back to the original post quoted. If you're going to waste any economical aid provided to you on flashy bullshit to impress random people on the street, then do you really need that aid? If you're going to live in poverty regardless, then why should someone help you?

    It happens fairly often in my area.

    I certainly don't advocate stripping aid from those that make use of it.

    The question of drug testing welfare recipients comes up on the local news here from time to time. There's always a fairly big outcry from both sides.

    What I don't get is the people who, even though they know that there will be people who spend their welfare on drugs, they do not feel that money should be taken away from them.

    Why?

    Not everyone is responsible for the living conditions they are in. But when someone squander opportunities to improve it, the situation has changed.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    I see the ghetto and trailer park fabulous all the time. Neighborhood and home itself looks like shit in a hell hole and they're all riding in pimped out rides and buying big screen televisions.

    Not universal. Probably not even a majority. But it happens. Not everyone cares about succeeding. Just enough to get by.

    It's poor-man's pride. They can't afford to be truly affluent, so they buy the flashy things that'll let them feel good about themselves which they can show off to others. Which is why you'll see broke college kids using milk crates for furniture, but still have a rockin' sound system hooked up to their big screen TV.

    That goes back to the original post quoted. If you're going to waste any economical aid provided to you on flashy bullshit to impress random people on the street, then do you really need that aid? If you're going to live in poverty regardless, then why should someone help you?

    It happens fairly often in my area.

    I certainly don't advocate stripping aid from those that make use of it.

    The question of drug testing welfare recipients comes up on the local news here from time to time. There's always a fairly big outcry from both sides.

    What I don't get is the people who, even though they know that there will be people who spend their welfare on drugs, they do not feel that money should be taken away from them.

    Why?

    Not everyone is responsible for the living conditions they are in. But when someone squander opportunities to improve it, the situation has changed.

    If you adopt or become a foster parent, you have to constantly prove you're capable of handling a child.

    It should be the same way if you're on welfare.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Watcha gonna do when the welfare joes flunk the drug test? Let them starve? Cut them off?

    People with problems need help with their problems, not extra problems.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Watcha gonna do when the welfare joes flunk the drug test? Let them starve? Cut them off?

    People with problems need help with their problems, not extra problems.

    They'll get a couple of warnings: probation, if you will. But if you don't want to help yourself, why should we continue to try and waste money?

    I'm all for trying to help people, but they should have to prove they're worth helping.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    the problems that lead to people blowing money on shit they don't need comes from the lack of education, and a lot of social issues we have. I wouldn't want to see the individual punished for that.

    as far as drugs, if we actually had sensible drug policy in this country I'd be all for that. drug test them, say we are giving you money, if you're gonna use it on drugs we are gonna have to get you help. that'd be fucking awesome. simply cutting them off doesn't help anyone and makes it more likely they'll steal for the drugs.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Thirty six million american households are on food stamps, maybe now isn't the time for people to cry about "young bucks buying steaks with their aid money rather than working"

    It almost makes me ill the barely contained bile for the poor some of you have. I'm getting food stamps some point next week, after the three month wait. I didn't think I'd need them but I'm losing my other job for a while now and will.

    Because a small percentage of outliers abuse the system people want to add another couple layers of beaurocracy to the system? I had to prove

    - Where I was going to school
    - How much student aid I recieve
    - My employment (or lack of it) status (they made me go to my former employer and get something signed proving I was fired, because I didn't have paystubs - the new manager didn't know how to make them in the month leading up to me being fired)
    - How I've managed to survive so far
    - Prove that I was recently evicted

    I mean this has been a back and forth, and some of you in here want more complexity added? FFS people in this country are hurting, and you'd rather 10 children go hungry than 1 person who's comfortable living on $7500 a year mooch the system.

    Now I'll wait for someone to say "if you managed to survive so long without food stamps, you obviously don't need them"

    override367 on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2009
    My mom had to apply for food stamps a couple of times when I was a kid. That got me some weird looks in the lunch line at the affluent middle school I attended when I'd pull out the blue food-assistance-program lunch card instead of the yellow one all the other kids had. But, y'know, it kept us alive, and we saw our way through to better times. Nobody I've met in person has ever had the physical or moral courage to go on and on and on about what a horrible social parasite my mom was to my face.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Actually *you* were the parasite. Maybe if you were a little hungrier as a kid you would have picked up a part-time job at 7-11 between arithmetic and storytime instead of playing kickball like the rich kids who deserve it.

    Cervetus on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Actually *you* were the parasite. Maybe if you were a little hungrier as a kid you would have picked up a part-time job at 7-11 between arithmetic and storytime instead of playing kickball like the rich kids who deserve it.

    There is actually a non-sarcastic GOP faction that feels this way.
    In her June newsletter, State Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-MO) provided several “commentaries” to a press release from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on a summer food program. The program provides “food during the summer for thousands of low-income Missouri children who rely on the school cafeteria for free or reduced-price meals during the regular school year.” Davis, who serves as the chairwoman of the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families, questioned whether the program is “warranted,” and extolled the hidden benefits of child hunger:
    Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. [...] Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another. [...] Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break. [...] It really is all about increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts.

    A report by Feeding America found that one in five Missouri children currently lives with hunger. Taking apart Davis’ other arguments, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial noted that most of the summer feeding program sites are actually hosted by churches and that the program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, fed 3.7 million meals at a total cost of less than $9.5 million last summer — “a pretty good use of federal money.” (HT: DailyKos diarist Dem Beans)

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    That blue food assistance card isn't really food stamps, I got that with my mom making just under average income, but well above poverty. Food stamps you have to make alot less to get.

    override367 on
  • Options
    Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quick someone post that Craig T Nelson clip about foodstamps and welfare!

    Undead Scottsman on
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quick someone post that Craig T Nelson clip about foodstamps and welfare!

    I was on food stamps! The government never helped me!

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I was listening to NPR where there was a sociologist who said the vast majority of people on food stamps he interviewed thought it was okay for them to get food stamps but still believed the vast majority of people on food stamps were just lazy.

    The GOP has effectively convinced the poor of this nation to fight against their own interests quite astoundingly.

    override367 on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I was listening to NPR where there was a sociologist who said the vast majority of people on food stamps he interviewed thought it was okay for them to get food stamps but still believed the vast majority of people on food stamps were just lazy.

    The GOP has effectively convinced the poor of this nation to fight against their own interests quite astoundingly.

    I was on welfare, so fuck socialism! And how dare they take my money and give it to people on welfare!

    Its the downside of the American Dream.
    Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables — slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won't. We're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    Silas BrownSilas Brown That's hobo style. Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So, where's the unironic counterargument, huh? I want to hear someone try to justify why people who could genuinely use help should be denied that. Tell us about how our founding fathers started this country so people could be shunned or starve or be homeless in the name of the free market!

    EDIT: Thank you, Joe the Plumber, for displaying a middle schooler's understanding of welfare. Eat a dick.

    Silas Brown on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The "hungry kids are productive kids" angle is great.

    If God has a sense of humor, he'll tell Huckabee to push that in the 2012 primaries.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The "hungry kids are productive kids" angle is great.

    If God has a sense of humor, he'll tell Huckabee to push that in the 2012 primaries.

    It goes really great with the bumper sticker I saw the other day

    Don't Spread My Wealth
    Spread My Work Ethic!!!!

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    Silas BrownSilas Brown That's hobo style. Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The "hungry kids are productive kids" angle is great.

    If God has a sense of humor, he'll tell Huckabee to push that in the 2012 primaries.

    It goes really great with the bumper sticker I saw the other day

    Don't Spread My Wealth
    Spread My Work Ethic!!!!

    Oh fuck, I saw the same one last week. I love it because it's like a big "I'm a humongous asshole. Avoid me at all costs" sign.

    Silas Brown on
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    My parents divorced when I was 11, and my father passed away when I was 13. This left me and my sister some money (neither an insignificant sum nor vast riches) that was intended to go towards our schooling and whatnot, and was used very sparingly by my family to offset expenses we couldn't cover. And there were many. As a single mother with two early teens in the household, she strove to provide us with food, shelter, clothes, some ammenities and sent herself back to school. She worked retail jobs where people practically half her age treated her like shit, and even was on welfare at some times, as I recall.

    I helped where I could, donating some of what little I earned at odd jobs to help cover rent, groceries, and eventually started buying my own food and essentially renting out the tiny basement we had as my own place.

    She made it.

    Completed school, graduated with honours, though she now works in an unrelated field, she's making fairly good money as a productive member of society, and I like to think that my sister and I turned out alright. (Edit: my sister and I are also both gainfully employed)

    Any one who wants to shit on welfare and social assistance is free to look me in the eye and tell me that I and my family were not worth that support.

    Knowing that some of my paycheque goes to services like that is something I pay gladly. Even knowing that there are "mooches" or those who would abuse the system, I would gladly see countless dregs of society scrape by a living if it means that somewhere, one family like mine is struggling just a little less.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    Any one who wants to shit on welfare and social assistance is free to look me in the eye and tell me that I and my family were not worth that support.

    I was on welfare when I was a kid. Dad was an alcoholic. I'm thankful that he got his shit together and came back and he's making nice money and providing. Etc.

    Point is, I was on welfare. You and your sister were on welfare. You, your sister, and my mom didn't spend the welfare proceeds on blinging cars and drugs, which is part of the question I posed earlier.
    The GOP has effectively convinced the poor of this nation to fight against their own interests quite astoundingly.

    As mentioned in the chat thread, we had a guy call into the office today. Pissed that his Life Line didn't cover long distance calls. Life Line is a government subsidy that goes to impoverished families that need phone service.

    Since Life Line didn't cover long distance, and we wouldn't comp him, he was going to call the FCC and demand that we not longer be able to offer the option of Life Line because we don't deserve to help people.

    I'm sure he's a life long Republican.

    That's like the Catholic Church threatening to shut down their soup kitchen due to a completely unrelated gay marriage issue.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    It should also be noted that countries with the highest level of government services enjoy the highest levels of social mobility.
    socialmobility.png

    More statistics on social classes can be found via this handy page from the New York Times.

    Suriko on
  • Options
    Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Any one who wants to shit on welfare and social assistance is free to look me in the eye and tell me that I and my family were not worth that support.

    I was on welfare when I was a kid. Dad was an alcoholic. I'm thankful that he got his shit together and came back and he's making nice money and providing. Etc.

    Point is, I was on welfare. You and your sister were on welfare. You, your sister, and my mom didn't spend the welfare proceeds on blinging cars and drugs, which is part of the question I posed earlier.

    A lot of welfare programs are already based around basic needs, not just handing money over to people. For example, food stamps, government-subsidized housing, etc.

    Also, it is incredibly difficult to to find employment without access to some form of transportation, decent clothing, etc, and for that, money is needed. Yes, some people are going to spend what money they receive on dumb shit, but without welfare to act as a stepping stone you would see a drastic increase in unemployment and crime. It's really not worth cutting back on welfare to spite the few people who are going to be lazy shits about it, because if you do, chances are those few lazy shits will turn to more drastic measures to stay alive. Like mugging.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    You're choice of examples leaves much to be desired. In a nation of 305 million, putting Paris Hilton (or her ilk) in the mix is a Red Herring of epic proportions. We all start from different places in our lives, and while she may never work a day in her life, and while you may have been born in an upper-middle-class family, and I might have had blue-collar parents whose biggest success was owning a starter home, and Mr. Joe Ghetto's mom is a crack whore, the starting point for societal aims should focus on making sure there are no government-supported institutional constraints towards social mobility.

    I don't see what's wrong with my choice of examples. You were saying that a True Conservative would push for equality of opportunity. Except by any sane definition of "opportunity", there's no way you can do that by simply removing government-supported institutional constraints. Not even close. The guy going to a shitty school that's just worried about keeping the teachers from getting shot doesn't have the same opportunities as the rich guy whose parents are buying him a few hundred extra SAT points via "tutoring programs" and then paying his way through the private college of his choice. That's just not how society works. You're trying to pretend that everybody starting in wildly disparate socioeconomic conditions is irrelevant to the idea of equal opportunity, but that's bullshit.
    Can everyone here vote?
    Is everyone protected under the same laws?
    Does one person have more or less rights than the others?

    These are they types (though not an exhaustive list ) of questions that should be looked at.

    Why just those?

    I mean, you're saying that as if it's clearly objective truth. If it is, I'm not seeing it. So why just those areas? Why not things like "Does one person have enough food to eat?" or "Is one person in an economic situation where it is nigh impossible for him to improve his situation, and through no fault of his own?"
    You propose "Maybe Joe needs a scholarship". Maybe he does. The question isn't "can we help Joe be more like Paris?", but rather, is there anything actively stopping Joe from doing well that falls under the government's area of responsiblity? I don't buy that we should subsidize his childcare, or give him cheaper school access than his neighbor, or a large number of other social engineering concepts that can be floated around.

    Why not? We subsidize behaviors all the time. Mortgages, business growth, charitable donations... the list of behaviors we subsidize via tax write-offs is huge. Are you opposed to all of those, as well?
    Aiding the poor helps everyone...unless your aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and subservience to those who are supplying the aid. Does your program free barriers and give someone control over their own success or failure? Or does it create entitlements that ensnare generations into survival by the whim of those paying for the aid?

    man whut

    Please explain to me how giving some poor dude affordable access to night school so he has the education necessary to get a better job qualifies as "perpetuating poverty". I mean seriously, I specifically listed things designed to help people get educations and thus better jobs.

    But to answer your question, these programs free barriers and give people control over their own success and failure.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    A lot of welfare programs are already based around basic needs, not just handing money over to people. For example, food stamps, government-subsidized housing, etc.

    This is true but there's a healthy blac[qk market for selling EBT cards around here.
    Also, it is incredibly difficult to to find employment without access to some form of transportation, decent clothing, etc, and for that, money is needed. Yes, some people are going to spend what money they receive on dumb shit, but without welfare to act as a stepping stone you would see a drastic increase in unemployment and crime. It's really not worth cutting back on welfare to spite the few people who are going to be lazy shits about it, because if you do, chances are those few lazy shits will turn to more drastic measures to stay alive. Like mugging.

    Eh. I don't advocate cutting back on it, but more or less some type of enforcement to make sure that the aid isn't abused. Drug tests, for one, with required rehabilitation for repeat offenders.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009

    A lot of welfare programs are already based around basic needs, not just handing money over to people. For example, food stamps, government-subsidized housing, etc.

    Also, it is incredibly difficult to to find employment without access to some form of transportation, decent clothing, etc, and for that, money is needed. Yes, some people are going to spend what money they receive on dumb shit, but without welfare to act as a stepping stone you would see a drastic increase in unemployment and crime. It's really not worth cutting back on welfare to spite the few people who are going to be lazy shits about it, because if you do, chances are those few lazy shits will turn to more drastic measures to stay alive. Like mugging.

    I have been making this argument to my parents for years. They despise all sorts of programs like this. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment. They don't think its "fair" for them to have to pay to keep up worthless people that don't want to work and just want to leech off of everybody else. This is also why they oppose healthcare reform. "Why should I have to pay for some lazy junkie to go get pills?" I tell them that there are plenty of wealthy people that take advantage of whatever government system or loophole they can in the name of greed without a care to who they hurt but this fact just flies right over their heads.

    Wealthy southern republicans, whaddayagonna do?

    Orochi_Rockman on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2009
    There are a number of things you can do regarding people abusing welfare initiatives:

    A) Deal with it, and absorb the added cost due to abuse
    B) Implement measures to prevent abuse
    C) Say "fuck it" and kill the program being abused

    If you're choosing C, then either you're just categorically opposed to that program and looking for an excuse to kill it, or the program is really being abused all to hell and back. If you're choosing B, you better be sure that you're not spending more money on prevention than you'd be losing by just sucking it up and taking the loss associated with A.

    Most programs I'm aware of could be best addressed by either A or B. There really aren't that many people who seek to make a living on the government dole, speaking as a percentage of expenditures. Living on the government dole pays shit compared to, say, getting an actual job. Yes, yes, everyone has his anecdotes, but anecdotes mean fuck-all.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yes, yes, everyone has his anecdotes, but anecdotes mean fuck-all.

    But this one time, anecdotes saved my life!

    Cervetus on
  • Options
    KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Can everyone here vote?
    Is everyone protected under the same laws?
    Does one person have more or less rights than the others?
    *Ahem*
    racespoiled.jpg

    Kanamit on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I don't think anyone should make any serious complaints about welfare and food stamps as long as we're spending nearly a trillion a year so the brass can play army in the desert.

    override367 on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2009
    That blue food assistance card isn't really food stamps, I got that with my mom making just under average income, but well above poverty. Food stamps you have to make alot less to get.

    That's true, but we were on food stamps as well. I remember going with my mom to the other side of town to use the stamps at the ghetto grocery store so as to avoid getting weird looks.

    Jacobkosh on
Sign In or Register to comment.