An ideology question.

[MONOLITH]

Tell me your thoughts on this scenario;


Two men, both living in America. Both have the freedom to decide the course of their lives. They start out at the same point, at the same level.

One, a little more pro-active than the other, starts his own business. He struggles through the early years, barely making any money. Makes all the sacrifices, gets through it, and in a few years has a successful business and is considered 'well off' financially.

The other man, chose to work a dead end job, got laid off, and went on unemployment and welfare. Instead of really trying to improve his situation, he found it easier to collect the unemployment checks and catch every episode of Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. Maybe even had a couple of children with is wife during this time, worsening his situation.

The question; Is it truly fair now, for the government to step in, and forcibly take money away from man #1, and give it to man #2?

[Zazoo]

Tell me your thoughts on this scenario;
The question; Is it truly fair now, for the government to step in, and forcibly take money away from man #1, and give it to man #2?

No, it isn't fair.

So, who's your bum friend? :tongue:
~Mike

[BajaBravo]

Life isn't fair no matter what you do. The real question is how palatable are the alternatives. If man # 2 has no income and can't get a decent job, what's he going to do? He probably won't politely starve to death, acknowledging that he alone is responsible for how his life turned out.

He's much more likely to look to man # 1 and think, "that lucky @%$#@ got all the breaks", justifying in his own mind that man # 1 caused his problems. It is not a far stretch from there to justifying stealling from man # 1, or selling drugs to his kids, or some other crappy thing. Best case senerio, he gets caught before he does any real damage and goes to jail. Man # 1 is supporting him all the same, so he's no better off.

And possibly worse, what about man # 2's kids? They are predisposed to being losers  before they even have a chance to make their own decisions. The likelyhood of their judgement being sound once they do is pretty remote. We all like to celebrate those that grew up in the sh!t and through grit and determination turned out well. Unfortunately for every one of those guys, there are thousands that can't overcome the odds. Man #1 can pay a little now, or pay a lot later, but he can't avoid the bill.

I'm not suggesting that just giving someone else's money away solves the problem; it doesn't. I am suggesting however that there is nothing simple about dealing with the problems associated with polarized distribution of income.

[Lazerblade]

The problem lies in the society in which we live, where laziness is often a means of barely surviving but doing so much more comfortably than one would in any other country. Personal problems become social issues, but they also become a scapegoat for unemployment, alcoholism, even random violence. The welfare system doesn't lend a helping hand, it offers a reason to let go of the social and economic ladder, because the climb IS tiring and there IS an easier way. Welfare needs to be changed, to both alleviate the burden on those that still contribute to the economy, and to actually help those that really need it. Sometimes we make mistakes that potentially cost us our future. We're only human. I think that giving everyone a chance at choosing their own social status in life (other than societal leech) is possible, but not with the attitude, mindset, and ease of abusing the system that's in place today.

So if I were man #1, I'd be petitioning my state and federal government for change in the welfare system. I'd be looking for the candidates that will make those changes happen. I'd be getting involved in social awareness.

I might buy a gun too.

[Laughing_Bun]

Nope it is not fair. Instead of taking money from man 1, they should forcively put the other man to work. replacing all the illegal immigrants, we DO have people to do those jobs they are just too busy watching tv and eating cheetos. If they refuse to work we should just deny them benefits. We need more programs to get these people employed and less that do nothing but enable them to leech off the rest of us.

[Frozyn]

I can't understand the mentality that goes behind this laziness we have. I mean, I'm just like the rest of us - I get lazy. I put off various things I need to do. But when it comes to my life, and my future, I'm always hands-on go-getter trying to make things perfect. I can't understand the people who are willing to live on welfare.

I have a feeling it has a lot to do with comfortability. If someone learns to live on welfare in a relatively "comfortable" situation, then they don't see the point of exerting extra effort to find a more comfortable situation. Pain of working > Comfort of nicer things.

Of course, the mentality also exists that, like Lazer said, welfare doesn't help.  If it doesn't help - get rid of it. Then we'll see how those people respond.

[Lazerblade]

One thing we have to be careful of though is the "other" welfare system we have, the one specifically designed for singles without children, or deadbeats wishing to avoid responsibility of children. Yes, I'm talking about prison. Although, if the prisons across the U.S. adapted the mentality of the prison in Arizona where the prisoners have to work to get paid and pay for everything from food to bedding, and they're forced to wear pink and have no air conditioning, I think prison population wouldn't be an issue.

[Ronin]

One thing we have to be careful of though is the "other" welfare system we have, the one specifically designed for singles without children, or deadbeats wishing to avoid responsibility of children. Yes, I'm talking about prison.

How is this a welfare system?  Here in Georgia, I think prison inmates (who have to work unless they are in maximum security) get paid about six cents an hour.  If I'm not mistaken, all state prisoners in Georgia, unless they are in maximum security, have to work.  And it's like 10 hours a day 7 days a week (I'm not sure about the hours since I don't know anyone in prison).

In Tatnall county, they have a county "farm" where all the inmates have to work.  The inmates are fed from what is grown on the county farm.  No farming, no food.

[Lazerblade]

OK, perhaps prison was the extreme case, but how many prisons actually require inmates to work? Certainly not all of them. And I think the jail system, with it's short-term population, tends to benefit more than be punished by the system.

[Zazoo]

Cowbell, I accidentally managled and killed your post while trying to reply (the edit and quote buttons are close together, and it doesn't always warn you that you're EDITING rather than REPLYING... so my reply overwrote your original post.
My appologies. Please repost. :yikes:

~Mike

[Fixxxer]

Cowbell, I accidentally managled and killed your post while trying to reply (the edit and quote buttons are close together, and it doesn't always warn you that you're EDITING rather than REPLYING... so my reply overwrote your original post.
My appologies. Please repost. :yikes:

~Mike

If I had a dime for every time I've done that...

:hmm:

[Ronin]

Cowbell, I accidentally managled and killed your post while trying to reply (the edit and quote buttons are close together, and it doesn't always warn you that you're EDITING rather than REPLYING... so my reply overwrote your original post.
My appologies. Please repost. :yikes:

~Mike

No worries, Mike.  I'm not sure I can.  It's kind of a "stream of consciousness" thing.  But I'll take a shot at it.

I guess what I'm saying is that for man number two to be able to pick the pocket of man number one by using the government to do it is just wrong.

Of course, there are folks who just can't fend for themselves.  We should take care of them.  There are others who slip and fall.  We should try to catch them and help them get back on their feet.  It benefits us all when we help someone else become productive again.

But there are some who are just "worthless" as my father calls them.  They have the ability to do better and to fend for themselves but they don't and they won't as long as there is any easy way for them to sponge off of others.  These people should be kicked off the dole and, if necessary, let them starve if they won't work.

There are some (a lot actually) who didn't bother to work hard.  Who took the easy (lazy) way and also make decisions with little regard for the consequences.  Many of them have one or more children.  It's not these kids fault that their parents are do-nothing lazy bums.  They shouldn't have to fight their way out of a hole dug by their parents.

I believe that these kids should be given a chance by putting them in foster homes where they will have a fighting chance at a decent life.  Their "natural" parents could have visitation rights.  But I believe that those kids' futures are more important than the rights of the parents.  If the parents can prove that they can stay sober, hold a job and provide for their children (clothe, feed, spend time with them and get them educated), then we can let them have their kids back.  The foster parents should be relatives if possible.

In fact, I think that people who can't be bothered to support themselves shouldn't even be allowed to have children.  Not when their kids are going to be raised in households in squalor, violence, drugs with parents who really don't give a cr*p about them except as a way to get a check from the county.

I did it the hard way.  I worked full time when I was going to technical school. (twice)  I don't have a college degree.  But I was making $80K a year when my job was outsourced to India.  I'm not on the dole and I won't be.  My wife works.  I paid to put her through college after we got married.  It wasn't cheap.  It was an investment into our future.  We didn't have kids right after we got married.  We couldn't afford them, then.  We can, now, but at 50 I'm too old to have kids.

Far too often people just want their instant gratification and will do whatever they feel like doing regardless of the consequences.  They know other people will usually take up the slack or pay for their mistakes.  I'm tired of paying for the mistakes and misdeeds of others.  The welfare state enables too many people to take the easy way out and expects those that work hard to pay for it.  It's time that changed.

I don't know exactly how it should be done.  But I know that generally government solutions are the ones that inconvenience the largest number of people.  Most of the time, I think government is the worst tool for social problems because it's run by bureaucrats who have little or no interest in actually making the problem (that justifies the existence of their jobs) go away.  So, I don't really know what to do.  It's a problem that needs to be solved but I'm sure I don't have all the answers.

I'm not without compassion.  But I don't have any interest in helping people who won't help themselves (apart from the mentally ill).

EDIT:  Ack!! I can't frickin' spell.  Beaurocrats, indeed.

[MONOLITH]

Please repost.

I'm certain the murdered post was only like 4 sentences........   :tongue:

[Ronin]

Yeah, well I had to recreate it and developed a case of verbal diarrhea (sp?).  My original post was about half that long, I think. :tongue:

[BOBK]

Baja-

And possibly worse, what about man # 2's kids? They are predisposed to being losers before they even have a chance to make their own decisions. The likelyhood of their judgement being sound once they do is pretty remote. We all like to celebrate those that grew up in the sh!t and through grit and determination turned out well. Unfortunately for every one of those guys, there are thousands that can't overcome the odds. Man #1 can pay a little now, or pay a lot later, but he can't avoid the bill.

I think this sums it up, fairly well, for me.  I don't want to have to pay for someone else, but feel that it is the right thing to have some kind of netting to work over.  I've come close, and wouldn't want to be told I'm lazy or something, just because i ended up needing help for a short while.

But certainly, there should be severe restrictions, and "catches", as always...such as:

After 6 mos a re-assesment is made, and if no effort has been put forth, its off to Iran!:tongue:

[Frozyn]

I think that's a good idea, Bob. People get a few-questions-asked stipend to readjust their life, and if no commitment is made, force them into service. Whether it be military, community, or doing the crappy jobs no one but illegal immigrants want to do, they're still doing something.

That said, we shouldn't create programs like we had in the Depression where crews would rake leaves from one side of the park to the other. Our economy isn't recovering from complete discussion. Make them do something worthwhile.

[110]

There's nothing wrong with helping people get back on their feet, but if you just give to people continually it becomes worthless and the'll just ask for more and expect it.

Welfare/Socialism robs people of their dignity, self-worth, and responsiblility.  Not to mention theft being immoral.

[Zazoo]

There's nothing wrong with helping people get back on their feet, but if you just give to people continually it becomes worthless and the'll just ask for more and expect it.

Welfare/Socialism robs people of their dignity, self-worth, and responsiblility. Not to mention theft being immoral.

So does abject poverty.
A properly working welfare system does would do just what you suggest -- help people get back on their feet. I would agree that our welfare system is broken, but I don't agree that the fix is eliminating the system altogether.

Given the option between a flawed welfare system that is abused by some and no welfare system at all, I'll take the former. I'm not about to condmen the truly needy to a inevitable downward-spiral into poverty just because I want to stick it to the moochers.

But then again, I've been accused of being a socialist more than once before... so yeah, you probably shouldn't listen to me. :tongue:
~Mike

[Da Fish]

Also look at it another way..... considering crime rates are higher amongst the deprived, the cost of policing those who arent working would be MORE than policing those who are given grants. I'm guessing that the cost of policing would be a greater burden on the tax payer than those benefits.

[MONOLITH]

Added question to the mix....

1.  Next year, after Iraq gets worse, Afghanistan gets worse, and things heat up with Iran, the US activates the draft;

Who should be forced into the military first.... My 18 year old son just out of high school, or the able bodied 30 yr old man who's been living off the welfare system for 8 years and has no, nor will get, a job.


2. Take any typical impoverished Ghetto neighborhood. Literally trash and garbage laying all over the sidewalks. If you're on welfare, and 'can't' find a job, how about the community in which you live in having a 'clean up your neighborhood' program, that you have to join in order to get welfare? I guess it amounts to a form of community service, but hey, why should you be allowed to just sit home watching Jerry Springer and flicking cigarette butts out your window? And the first time Leroy has to get embarrassed because he's cleaning the sidewalk in front of his neighbors house, watch how fast he gets a job and gets off the system.


There should be absolutely nothing wrong with being made to contribute something positive to society, if you're asking that society to support you.