New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I don't think I've ever hidden the fact that I take a marxist analysis.

yea, if you haven't heard that system failed and continues to fail.

[DanaC]

Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.

Perhaps then if the benefits hadn't been tied so strongly to parenthood and the amounts given not been mere subsistence levels, t would have had a different effect. If I understand your argument correctly, the help that was offered was inadequate and therefore created a different set of problems rather than resolving the ones it was set up to resolve.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Perhaps then if the benefits hadn't been tied so strongly to parenthood and the amounts given not been mere subsistence levels, t would have had a different effect. If I understand your argument correctly, the help that was offered was inadequate and therefore created a different set of problems rather than resolving the ones it was set up to resolve.

Yep.

[9th Engineer]

I oppose benefits by right because I don't believe in that right. I don't believe that we have an inalienable right to any sort of assistance. It is charity given by the rest of us. If you collect benefits then I hope there is a feeling connected to it of thankfulness that other people were kind enough to lend a hand at their own expense. If the government gives you $100 is it any different from my friends and I putting together $100 for you from among us?
If you have honestly fallen on hard times through no fault of your own, then say thank you and use it well. If you were stupid and are now paying the consequences, then you should definitely be humble when taking my money.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Perhaps then if the benefits hadn't been tied so strongly to parenthood and the amounts given not been mere subsistence levels, t would have had a different effect. If I understand your argument correctly, the help that was offered was inadequate and therefore created a different set of problems rather than resolving the ones it was set up to resolve.

Yes. The way if was handled it was almost mandatory for husband/dad to disappear, at least on paper, but too often in reality.... leaving welfare mom trapped in the system. Then welfare mom's daughters, feeling equally helpless, often getting pregnant in high school, then dropping out to work the only system they know. Rinse & repeat.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes. The way if was handled it was almost mandatory for husband/dad to disappear, at least on paper, but too often in reality.... leaving welfare mom trapped in the system. Then welfare mom's daughters, feeling equally helpless, often getting pregnant in high school, then dropping out to work the only system they know. Rinse & repeat.

I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.

I am, I've witnessed it first hand.
Spade makes some conclusions that are evidence he doesn't understand how it works at street level.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.

No, they aren't.

Admittedly, my crack ho with the 9 babies doesn't get an increase in her check because of them ... since she's not a fit parent and doesn't have custody of any of her kids, but I'm still paying for each of those kids, and will probably see them on a regular basis when they are older.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

Admittedly, my crack ho with the 9 babies doesn't get an increase in her check because of them ... since she's not a fit parent and doesn't have custody of any of her kids,

Well, there you go. Sounds like a prostitute who spends her money on drugs instead of birth control, not a welfare queen.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.

Welfare these days is quite different than it was before Clinton. When Clinton was president he inacted the 'welfare reform bill'

Welfare had a term limit on it. Welfare recipients HAD to look for work after a certain amount of time. They got help with child care and transportation.
Welfare these days is actually hard to get and for any smart person not worth the hassle.



Welfare reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

[lookout123]

were those the same wonderful clinton reforms that had people all upset at the horrible, heartless GOP for screwing over teh underprivileged?

at the end of the day what i hear is a lot of whining and bitching because some people think it is unfair that "the rich people" have more money than the rest of us. quit your bitching and get on your life. if you think wealth redistribution is such a marvelous idea, get off your ass, do what it takes to create wealth (versus confiscating it) and then decide if you feel like redistributing it at the government's whim. As for me, I will work hard to achieve my goals and create some small measure of wealth for me and my family. and i will try my hardest to not give uncle sam one penny more than i have absolutely have to. and i will continue to fund charities and help those around me the best i can.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Welfare these days is quite different than it was before Clinton. When Clinton was president he inacted the 'welfare reform bill'
Welfare had a term limit on it. Welfare recipients HAD to look for work after a certain amount of time. They got help with child care and transportation.
Welfare these days is actually hard to get and for any smart person not worth the hassle.
Welfare reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

That doesn't change the fact that;

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.

Yes, they have changed the system, because they started to realize they had really fucked up in the past.

[Cicero]

Who's he talking to?

[DanaC]

I oppose benefits by right because I don't believe in that right. I don't believe that we have an inalienable right to any sort of assistance. It is charity given by the rest of us. If you collect benefits then I hope there is a feeling connected to it of thankfulness that other people were kind enough to lend a hand at their own expense. If the government gives you $100 is it any different from my friends and I putting together $100 for you from among us?

Think of it more as society's savings club. When we are in work and solvent, as most of us are, most of the time, we pay in. If we are having difficulties and require that extra assistance, we draw on the savings. Unless a system is very badly managed and underfunded, having a benefits system increases people's economic viability/activity. Having a larger disposable income means people are less inclined to throw that income into the grey economy, instead they are more likely to put it into the open economyby buying things from shops. They are less likely to raise children in a chaotic and damaging environment and less likely to succomb to crime and drugs.

As long as the benefits are accompanied by better access to training and education and efforts are made to stop the 'race to the bottom' on wages which leads to factories closing in Detroit and reopening in Mexico, then people who are helped in this way are far more likely to rejoin the working population rather than become further and further isolated from it. Having returned to work someone is then putting back into the savings fund. If it's managed correctly, many of the people using that savings fund are also the people who pay into that fund.

In terms of the minority who will always disconnect themselves from the mainstream and take from the system without attemtping to pay back in: I consider that an acceptable loss leader on getting the majority out of poverty and social exclusion, back into economic activity and able to contribute to increasing the country's wealth/health.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Think of it more as society's savings club. When we are in work and solvent, as most of us are, most of the time, we pay in. If we are having difficulties and require that extra assistance, we draw on the savings. Unless a system is very badly managed and underfunded, having a benefits system increases people's economic viability/activity. Having a larger disposable income means people are less inclined to throw that income into the grey economy, instead they are more likely to put it into the open economyby buying things from shops. They are less likely to raise children in a chaotic and damaging environment and less likely to succomb to crime and drugs.

As long as the benefits are accompanied by better access to training and education and efforts are made to stop the 'race to the bottom' on wages which leads to factories closing in Detroit and reopening in Mexico, then people who are helped in this way are far more likely to rejoin the working population rather than become further and further isolated from it. Having returned to work someone is then putting back into the savings fund. If it's managed correctly, many of the people using that savings fund are also the people who pay into that fund.

In terms of the minority who will always disconnect themselves from the mainstream and take from the system without attemtping to pay back in: I consider that an acceptable loss leader on getting the majority out of poverty and social exclusion, back into economic activity and able to contribute to increasing the country's wealth/health.

That is a pipe dream. People who get nothing for nothing will not suddenly recontribute to society. I see it all the time. People get an insurance settlement they owe to a health care provider (and who the hell knows why insurance companies send them the check in the first place?) and the individual runs out and buys a brand new truck. They just don't pay the bill. They expect something for nothing. People have learned through many generations that he way to get ahead in life is to take advantage of a generous society that gives them something for nothing. And they like it that way.