The Cellar - What does government owe you?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - What does government owe you? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20655)

What does government owe you?

This lady rocks.

Robinson: Close the government buffet

Quote:

GEVERYL ROBINSON | Sunday, July 12, 2009 at 12:30 am
Contextual linking provided by Topix What the government owes poor people.

Recently, I asked a group of college students if they believed poor people in this country were owed anything from our government.

Initially, they said the government should provide for those who are less fortunate. However, when I stressed that the question wasn't whether the government should provide for them, but rather if the government owed poor people anything, the students' opinions changed.

I found it interesting that these young people, many of whom grew up in poverty or classified themselves as poor, overwhelmingly stated that the government does not now, nor has it ever, owed anything to anyone.

The lone exceptions were military veterans (FREE healthcare for life), the elderly and people who are seriously disabled, either due to a debilitating or mental illness. These people, students said, should receive health benefits and a monthly check for living expenses and food.

Several students told their own stories of struggle and survival. One has been unemployed for over a year and just received a job last week.

"Try making it on $275 per week," he told me, and that's before taxes are withheld. "But, I did it," he said with pride.

Another student came to my office and said he'd never given much thought to how the government should provide for those living below the poverty line.

"I have two opinions about it," he explained, "but I still keep coming back to the fact that no one is really owed anything." He then went on to tell me how he's managing to provide for his family (wife, two kids) on an annual salary of $30,000. His wife is from another country. He told me her parents had to pay cash for their home because there was no such thing as credit.

"Maybe the reason we have so many poor people," he later added, "is because we have so many plastic people. If we didn't use so much credit, maybe we'd have more money and fewer poor people."

I broached the subject with the students because it seems many in this country either believe the government owes something to those who are less fortunate, or those who are less fortunate believe they are owed something from the government.

It's gotten to where we have literally bankrupted our country trying to care for a vast majority of people who are perfectly capable of caring for themselves.

Next weekend, I'm flying to Florida for my grandmother's 99th birthday celebration. She remembers how things were run in our society before the inception of welfare.

"We didn't depend on anybody to do anything for us because we knew no body would," she once told me. "And the only reason welfare was started was because of the Great Depression."

Until 1960, only the elderly and disabled were allowed to receive benefits: the elderly and the disabled, the people who can't work. "If you were grown," my grandmother told me, "and you were big enough to walk, you worked."

And back in her day, churches and the community pitched in to help those in need as well too. My grandmother began helping out on her father's farm when she was a little child, and even now, she sews and instructs sewing to anyone willing to learn.

I'm not saying we should begin putting 5 year olds on assembly lines. But I am saying is that no able-bodied person has any business receiving all of his or her income from the government because we are the government and we are paying for their laziness.

I do not owe someone who has every opportunity afforded to me, and everyone else, anything at all, especially my hard-earned money.

There is a Chinese proverb that states, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." The government has been giving too many people fish for far too long, so much so that these people believe they are not capable of survival without the government lifeline.

Our government has gone from providing fish to providing filet mignon, all at our expense. It's time to shut down the government buffet because this "free meal" costs way too much.

Geveryl Robinson, formerly of Savannah, lives and writes in Knoxville. Geveryl@gmail.com

http://savannahnow.com/node/751188

Dude. I was ready for this to be an interesting thread. A thought that was triggered by something you read, a heart-felt response, an intellectual challenge placed against other members of this forum, to dare them to risk their political beliefs by answering a simple, pointed question, eloquently stated in such a way that would demand a rousing exchange of ideas.

Instead...just another goddamn clipboard dump that gets half a glance and zero responses. Seriously. You disappoint me.

At least ƒucking summarize the article--tell us what your thoughts were! Anything!

Pretend you're back in school, writing a paper. Form an idea, put it into words.

Quote:

I'm not saying we should begin putting 5 year olds on assembly lines. But I am saying is that no able-bodied person has any business receiving all of his or her income from the government because we are the government and we are paying for their laziness.

Well, at least she's a compassionate conservative.:cool: BTW, I've been paying into the system for 25 years. If I end up on unemployment or G-d forbid, disability, I'm not going to feel at all guilty about receiving it, any more than I would collecting on my car insurance if my car got totaled.

I agree we need more welfare to work. However, there is no way for some people to compete against illegal aliens for some jobs. If all of the service industries had to pay minimum wage, we would have enough jobs to get people off of welfare.

Right now we don't.

Quote:

Recently, I asked a group of college students if they believed poor people in this country were owed anything from our government.

Initially, they said the government should provide for those who are less fortunate. However, when I stressed that the question wasn't whether the government should provide for them, but rather if the government owed poor people anything, the students' opinions changed.

Well, what this bit tells me is that people give different answers to different questions.

Should we provide for the less fortunate? Should we prevent starvation, homelessness, the poverty trap, and the Dickensian misery and petty crime that comes from having no other option? Most people will say, yes.

Should somebody who has the ability and opportunity to support themselves by selling their labour, instead be given a steady supply of obligation-free taxpayers' money so they can lead a life of laziness? Most people will say, no.

Asking, does the government "owe" poor people anything has connotations of unrequited obligation, which conjures up images like the second example. So people generally say, no.

It's an old and easy trick, to couch the question in terms that will support the answer you want, then interpret the answer as an impartial general response. Plenty of people do it, but there's no need to take the results seriously.

Ask not, what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 581332)

Geveryl Robinson is a frequent commentator in our local paper. I find her articles to be thought provoking and intellectual and they often provoke a lot of discussion based on their content alone. If you can't read them or see the content for what it is I guess you can just consider it a "clipboard dump". I believe the content stands on it’s own without comment from me at this point. I was more interested in what others thought about her position on the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 581418)

I was more interested in what others thought about her position on the issue.

You must give to receive.

I agree with Zen, the entire premise is based on a flawed use of the word "owe" and all its negative connotations.

As a matter of fact, the government does owe me a lot of shit that I have paid them for. Roads, police, schools, etc. were all part of our agreement. Would any of those kids interviewed say that their roofing contractor doesn't "owe" them a new roof after they've paid for one?

The government owes me the enforcement of the social contract I make by participating in the state. As long as it has the will of the governed, which in most Western cases stands for a Democratic Republic, it will operate in the manner in which it was established.

As only one of the many, I do not determine what the government does alone, and I am forced by the nature of the social contract to accept what parts of it I do not agree with. Sometimes this seems unjust, and I would prefer that the rules or the system be different. But it's not my call alone, and I have to accept that as a condition of participating in the state.

And without the state and the social contract, I believe I would be severely worse off. If only for the obvious fact that without its defense, my physical area would be taken over by a foreign power and perhaps a very worse government implemented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 581427)

I agree with Zen, the entire premise is based on a flawed use of the word "owe" and all its negative connotations.

I guess the part that I left out (on purpose by the way) is that the author is a very sucessful black woman who grew up in the poor parts of Savannah. So her assessments are often from the perspective of other people who were in her situation.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, the government does owe me a lot of shit that I have paid them for. Roads, police, schools, etc. were all part of our agreement. Would any of those kids interviewed say that their roofing contractor doesn't "owe" them a new roof after they've paid for one?

On the surface I sort of agree that they may have responsibilities in some of these areas, but on the other had I am not sure that you can make a very strong case that you are owed anything because you pay taxes. The contract we all have with the government is more implied than explicit, other than on a Constitutional level. Where as the contract that we might have with a roofer would be explicit. Taxes are collected and the money is pooled. Our elected officials then try to do what they think is best by the community. To bad that often what they do is not always the best for the rest of us, as most of us who follow the BS in D.C. can document.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 581355)

Well, what this bit tells me is that people give different answers to different questions.

No doubt about that.

Quote:

Should we provide for the less fortunate? Should we prevent starvation, homelessness, the poverty trap, and the Dickensian misery and petty crime that comes from having no other option? Most people will say, yes.

Well there are certainly lots to think about by your response. And of course most likely no right answer. Who decides whom is less fortunate? So if I make 50k a year I think the person who makes 100k is rich. If I make 100k I think the person who makes 200k is rich. If I make $50 a week the guy down the street who make $200 a week is rich. Regardless of how each individual worked hard to get to that next level and achieve more or how much education one person got and how much they sacrificed to move up a little bit to do better for their own family. Starvation, homelessness, the poverty trap, situations which people convice you they have gone to because they are among the "have nots". None of these things are caused by single issues and none of them have simple solutions. So I say, it really depends.

Quote:

Should somebody who has the ability and opportunity to support themselves by selling their labour, instead be given a steady supply of obligation-free taxpayers' money so they can lead a life of laziness? Most people will say, no.

I agree, but we have created generations of people who would disagree with you. They have been conditioned to think just the opposit.

Quote:

Asking, does the government "owe" poor people anything has connotations of unrequited obligation, which conjures up images like the second example. So people generally say, no.

Maybe.

Quote:

It's an old and easy trick, to couch the question in terms that will support the answer you want, then interpret the answer as an impartial general response. Plenty of people do it, but there's no need to take the results seriously.

None of this was intended as a trick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 581418)

I was more interested in what others thought about her position on the issue.

If it's not worth your time to offer your opinion, why would it be worth mine?

I clicked on this thread with a genuine interest in hearing your opinion on the subject, so the disappointment is purely of my own making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 581435)

And without the state and the social contract, I believe I would be severely worse off. If only for the obvious fact that without its defense, my physical area would be taken over by a foreign power and perhaps a very worse government implemented.

[anarchy]That is about the only argument I truly buy. It is a terrible thing that we have to establish governments so others don't establish worse governments. Now that we have one there can be no end to the nonsense that left and right wing nuts will pursue so now we have to monitor... think maybe we should have stock-piled Molotov cocktails instead?[/boy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 581475)

If it's not worth your time to offer your opinion, why would it be worth mine?

Ok, no problem.