Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Flint, like Camden, are places we warehouse the useless people the economy no longer needs. The problem is expanding to many inner suburbs built during the cold war to house war industry workers are turning into slums as the residents have either retired, died or, for the lucky, moved to the Villages in Florida.
The underlying problem is industry has replaced many of the "warm body" work like feeding punch presses and spot welding car bodies with robots. Even skilled jobs like machinist and draftsman are being preplaced with programmers and graphics computers. There are simply fewer jobs available overall including those requiring a college degree and some talent.
We exacerbate the problem by importing immigrant workers to do the work at both ends of the complexity scale for far lower wages or just building a new more efficient factory overseas or in the American south in "right to work" for lower wages states. This results in a huge transfer of money from the actual workers to the owners in the investment class.
It also results in both The Donald and Sen. Sanders describing just how thoroughly the system is rigged while the Bush's and the Clinton's wonder how anybody figured it out.
To those that support welfare initiatives: Is there a way past this tendency to judgement based on investment, or is it a reasonable price to pay? Are there alternatives?
No, I don't think there's a way to escape or overcome judgement. Not in a country so focused on the individual, and steeped in the notion that self-reliance and perseverance in the face of hardship are the bedrock of good character, such that anyone who can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps by sheer force of will is morally flawed.
I find an interesting paradox in the resentful opinion that people who receive benefits seem "entitled", when it's born of an entitled belief that one should have a say in what happens with their tax contributions. The only cure for this would be an unlikely paradigm shift in which Americans learn to view taxation as the reasonable cost of living in a good country, and social welfare as just what you said, a system "to promote equality and prosperity for everyone, even those who may be disadvantaged."
On the question of Liberty, I worked on a documentary about American social welfare programs a couple of years back, which entailed interviewing a considerable number of SNAP recipients. Liberty is a construct experienced at the personal level. Many of the benefits recipients I spoke with definitely feel it as a weight on their Liberty, both from the practical angle of being subject to the conditions of the program and from the psychological angle of the stigma having recourse to the program carries. That said, most accepted the former as entirely fair and correct; it's the latter that creates frustration and anxiety. Interpersonal judgement can be a tremendously oppressive force in a life.
I've seen all manner of alternatives proposed by individuals here and there, but what results from those expressions is generally unproductive, often downright nasty. If an alternative exists, I think it would have to come from the combined efforts of a great many open minds (rather than the bold idea of one) or America would have already solved the problem.
The main problem with welfare as it stands is it is a cliff. If you make under poverty, you get it. If you make over, you are SOL if you don't make enough. This is the real problem. It don't insentify people to get off until their time passes. IMO the way we need to do is to turn that cliff into a hill. Kind of like Obamacare did with subsidies. You continue to give it but as a percentage until say 250% above the poverty line. This way you don't have people worrying about if make too much to get welfare.
I see this as a real problem with current welfare paradigms, too. I wonder how well that scheme would work. I would worry it end up with recipients that would "milk" the system more often because they can balance how much they want to work with what welfare they want to receive based on a standard that doesn't account for a person situation. It's a tough one.
The problem is the COL is not very accurately accounted for, neither is personal situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurPan
No, I don't think there's a way to escape or overcome judgement. Not in a country so focused on the individual, and steeped in the notion that self-reliance and perseverance in the face of hardship are the bedrock of good character, such that anyone who can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps by sheer force of will is morally flawed.
I find an interesting paradox in the resentful opinion that people who receive benefits seem "entitled", when it's born of an entitled belief that one should have a say in what happens with their tax contributions. The only cure for this would be an unlikely paradigm shift in which Americans learn to view taxation as the reasonable cost of living in a good country, and social welfare as just what you said, a system "to promote equality and prosperity for everyone, even those who may be disadvantaged."
On the question of Liberty, I worked on a documentary about American social welfare programs a couple of years back, which entailed interviewing a considerable number of SNAP recipients. Liberty is a construct experienced at the personal level. Many of the benefits recipients I spoke with definitely feel it as a weight on their Liberty, both from the practical angle of being subject to the conditions of the program and from the psychological angle of the stigma having recourse to the program carries. That said, most accepted the former as entirely fair and correct; it's the latter that creates frustration and anxiety. Interpersonal judgement can be a tremendously oppressive force in a life.
I've seen all manner of alternatives proposed by individuals here and there, but what results from those expressions is generally unproductive, often downright nasty. If an alternative exists, I think it would have to come from the combined efforts of a great many open minds (rather than the bold idea of one) or America would have already solved the problem.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply!
I would like to hear some acknowledgment from pro-welfare advocates that the bureaucracy of it leaves much to be desired, even in best-case scenarios.
The programs themselves can be discriminatory and frustrating too, such as WIC. I watched a woman in front of me at the grocery try to buy peanut butter with WIC benefits, and we stood there 10 minutes while the clerk had to look up if the peanut butter had any of the "no-no" sugary ingredients. Corn syrup ok? Does it have to be all natural? What about the kind with jelly in it? Hmm... then she brought over a second grocery store clerk because they couldn't find that brand in their booklet. They finally let her buy the stuff, and I said to the check-out person in my lane, "all that for a jar of peanut butter? How humiliating." and she sneered, "They deserve it. This is supposed to be for healthy food and these women try to buy their kids candy bars." ... oh, what terrible mothers they must be.
I hope the case for a cultural change in attitude isn't a total lost cause.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,499,887 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Of course it does but think of it this way. You may give to charities but do you think I do. What about other posters? For the welfare train to end, society will need to give that exact dollar amount to charity. If we don't, it just makes the problem worse. I'm pragmatic and realistic. I hate to be cynical but it's just the world we live in and greedy people are.
Not that they quit jobs but they may decide to not get better paying jobs to keep their benefits. Say I get $1,000 a month if I only work 28 hours at $9.00 an hour (1,008 a month) and lose it at (1,100). At 35 hours a week, I would have to have to make $14.34 an hour to break even. If I can't get that pay rate, I can't take the job without a pay cut due to losing benefits.
You'd make the same money amount working but not get any health insurance. In SSDI you get 1k a month and great health insurance with almost no co pays. That's why SSDI abuse is such a problem in rural places with no good job options.
Welfare has always taken some liberties from people. It's meant to be for the most desperate people who prefer losing a few liberties to being homeless. The problem with our current system is it's All or Nothing. In some states getting on SSDI is easy, heck in many rural Kentucky counties half the population is on SSDI. Not an exaggeration. Meanwhile someone who's truly disabled in another state can't get on SSDI and is working 2 part time jobs with no health insurance.
I see this as a real problem with current welfare paradigms, too. I wonder how well that scheme would work. I would worry it end up with recipients that would "milk" the system more often because they can balance how much they want to work with what welfare they want to receive based on a standard that doesn't account for a person situation. It's a tough one.
The problem is the COL is not very accurately accounted for, neither is personal situation.
I think my proposal is a bit better for moving up because it is a reduction above the poverty line, not a
"poof, they're gone" scenario like it is now. I also age that COL is a problem for most welfare programs, even Social Security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verbalassassin
Fact:
Of the people on welfare;
39.8% are Blacks
38.8% are Whites
15.7% are Hispanics
2.4% are Asians
They'll still blame the African-Americans and Hispanics though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata
You'd make the same money amount working but not get any health insurance. In SSDI you get 1k a month and great health insurance with almost no co pays. That's why SSDI abuse is such a problem in rural places with no good job options.
As of right now with or without SSDI, you'd likely get Medicaid and if not, you would be below the mark to get banged for having no insurance. Just food for thought...
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata
Welfare has always taken some liberties from people. It's meant to be for the most desperate people who prefer losing a few liberties to being homeless. The problem with our current system is it's All or Nothing. In some states getting on SSDI is easy, heck in many rural Kentucky counties half the population is on SSDI. Not an exaggeration. Meanwhile someone who's truly disabled in another state can't get on SSDI and is working 2 part time jobs with no health insurance.
Of course but that is a problem due to the state to state nature just like Medicaid's expansion. I'm sure those that actually need welfare would gladly would give up a few liberties to have a roof over their head, food in the belly and not be sick. I wish we could remove the state-to-state nature but that is a problem of budgets and also big government.
Last edited by Jeo123; 02-24-2016 at 09:01 AM..
Reason: Edited Quote
Total freedom is reserved for complete hermits living in solitude.
Not even complete hermits have total freedom. They have to stay where they are. If they try to move to a place with a better climate, they will be surrounded by non-hermits, which will seem like prison to them. So they're really in a prison already, being forced to stay in their isolated places, and not try to improve their situation by moving to better places.
Freedom is really a myth. Some oppressions are worse than others. What people really mean by freedom is escaping from worse oppressions by accepting other oppressions that don't seem as bad. And different people are bothered different amounts by different oppressions, so one person's slavery is another person's freedom.
Is it very common for people to confuse SSDI with SSI? I notice a lot of these debates seem to confuse the two, and equate them. But SSDI is insurance, paid for by its recipients, while SSI is welfare for those who couldn't pay for SSDI. How much SSDI people get depends on how much work they did and how much they earned and how much SS tax was deducted from their paychecks. How much SSI people get only depends on what state they live in. Some people get thousands of dollars per month for SSDI, because they had high-paying jobs and a lot of money was deducted from their paychecks for SS for a lot of years. SSI is often a small fraction of SSDI, and is usually not enough to pay the cost of living. But SSI costs taxpayers a lot of money because it's 100% pure welfare. SSDI doesn't really cost taxpayers, except the SS part of their tax.
We basically just need to eliminate the disability gravy train. I'm not talking about the truly disabled who really cannot function at a job. I'm taking about the "my brain/body is far too fried from years of recreational drug use" crowd. Or the "I'm too lazy and anxious to get out of bed" crowd. We have far too many lawyers on TV "fighting" for the "rights" of the irresponsible masses.
Also, if you have children and hit a rough patch due to circumstances beyond your control..that's one thing...but CONTINUING to reproduce with impunity when you are already in a bad economic situation..sorry, but that's on you and the American tax payer is DONE paying for your carelessness.
The underlying goal of welfare is to promote equality and prosperity for everyone, even those who may be disadvantaged. However, does this push for equality and prosperity - even under the best of intentions - reduce liberty?
Since when did the "goal" of welfare become as you describe? This isn't universally understood to be the goal.
We basically just need to eliminate the disability gravy train. I'm not talking about the truly disabled who really cannot function at a job. I'm taking about the "my brain/body is far too fried from years of recreational drug use" crowd. Or the "I'm too lazy and anxious to get out of bed" crowd. We have far too many lawyers on TV "fighting" for the "rights" of the irresponsible masses.
Also, if you have children and hit a rough patch due to circumstances beyond your control..that's one thing...but CONTINUING to reproduce with impunity when you are already in a bad economic situation..sorry, but that's on you and the American tax payer is DONE paying for your carelessness.
I don't see this to nearly the degree I see people claiming disability due to chronic pain or neck/back problems. There are people in my own family who claim this, and I know many others. When I see them, they don't look too handicapped to work at all, yet they apparently get disability without questions. These aren't poor people, they are regular people in suburbs or more rural areas, who are church goers and generally good people in other aspects of life...but the attitude of entitlement and helplessness in our country seems to transcend color and income level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
