Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

What is poverty?

thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:06:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is one of my favorite articles. The author, who worked extensively with the lower class in England, describes just how soul-crushing and destructive to the human spirit much of our modern society, and the welfare state in particular, really is. I think what I like best about the article is that it does not try to make any policy suggestions--for this specific issue there really is no right answer. All it attempts to do is bring to light a side of the story that most people are not even aware of.

A while ago when I started a thread where if someone posted an article to someone they had to read it I had this one in mind. I want everyone to read it but I'm particularly interested in the leftist perspective on the authors observations.

http://www.city-journal.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:08:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Just as it is easier to recognize ill health in someone you haven't seen for some time rather than in someone you meet daily, so a visitor coming into a society from elsewhere often can see its character more clearly than those who live in it. Every few months, doctors from countries like the Philippines and India arrive fresh from the airport to work for a year's stint at my hospital. It is fascinating to observe their evolving response to British squalor.

At the start, they are uniformly enthusiastic about the care that we unsparingly and unhesitatingly give to everyone, regardless of economic status. They themselves come from cities"Manila, Bombay, Madras"where many of the cases we see in our hospital would simply be left to die, often without succor of any kind. And they are impressed that our care extends beyond the merely medical: that no one goes without food or clothing or shelter, or even entertainment. There seems to be a public agency to deal with every conceivable problem. For a couple of weeks, they think this all represents the acme of civilization, especially when they recall the horrors at home. Poverty"as they know it" has been abolished.

Before very long, though, they start to feel a vague unease. A Filipina doctor, for example, asked me why so few people seemed grateful for what was done for them. What prompted her question was an addict who, having collapsed from an accidental overdose of heroin, was brought to our hospital. He required intensive care to revive him, with doctors and nurses tending him all night. His first words to the doctor when he suddenly regained consciousness were, "Get me a f*cking roll-up" (a hand-rolled cigarette). His imperious rudeness didn't arise from mere confusion: he continued to treat the staff as if they had kidnapped him and held him in the hospital against his will to perform experiments upon him. "Get me the f*ck out of here!" There was no acknowledgment of what had been done for him, let alone gratitude for it. If he considered that he had received any benefit from his stay at all, well, it was simply his due.

My doctors from Bombay, Madras, or Manila observe this kind of conduct open- mouthed. At first they assume that the cases they see are a statistical quirk, a kind of sampling error, and that given time they will encounter a better, more representative cross section of the population. Gradually, however, it dawns upon them that what they have seen is representative. When every benefit received is a right, there is no place for good manners, let alone for gratitude."
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:13:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"By the end of three months my doctors have, without exception, reversed their original opinion that the welfare state, as exemplified by England, represents the acme of civilization. On the contrary, they see it now as creating a miasma of subsidized apathy that blights the lives of its supposed beneficiaries. They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries. And what they see is all the worse, of course, because it should be so much better. The wealth that enables everyone effortlessly to have enough food should be liberating, not imprisoning. Instead, it has created a large caste of people for whom life is, in effect, a limbo in which they have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is a life emptied of meaning."
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:28:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A society where the government provides free healthcare will probably encourage risky sex, smoking, reckless driving, excessive drinking, drug usage, and so forth. There may even be an overall decrease in the quality of health as a result.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:53:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As for the article itself, I think there's definitely something wrong with providing for every single need of people who don't even try to earn it themselves. I've never been a big fan of the overly-extensive welfare state we have here in the UK. That's why I would prefer something along the lines of negative income taxation. Unemployed people would be guaranteed only enough money to afford food, water, shelter, basic utilities, etc, and the phasing of NIT rates would have to be sharp enough to clearly associate full dependency with a large opportunity cost. I'm also open to the idea of only providing hand-outs to the unemployed for a set period of time, after which further assistance would be contingent upon doing community service or something.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 11:28:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

MW would hurt the working poor as job opportunities are destroyed. Welfare does not hurt the chances of job creation for the poor that truly want to work.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 11:34:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

Welfare is also better for the poor than MW because welfare may create some jobs through the "broken window" effect as welfare recipients create jobs through "trickle up."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 11:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Who is rich? He that is content. Who is that? Nobody.
-Ben Franklin

Well if apathy was considered close to contentment, then the guy in Thett's example was truly rich in a Franklintonian sense.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 12:24:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 11:28:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

MW would hurt the working poor as job opportunities are destroyed. Welfare does not hurt the chances of job creation for the poor that truly want to work.

And if there is a means of you not to work and still be paid (Welfare programs), it hurts those that truly want to work by showing them the don't actually need to work.

Put the money in the hands of the people whom will spend it, this is done by wage increases. While the current ones on the table seem outlandish, we can't accept the current MW as a reasonable means to an end for the one working that job. They WILL be continuing to draw off the system in various fashions, especially into later years.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 12:46:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

I'd say a high minimum wage forces more people into the welfare system
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 2:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 12:46:28 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

I'd say a high minimum wage forces more people into the welfare system

+1
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 3:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 12:46:28 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

I'd say a high minimum wage forces more people into the welfare system

Disagree. It is true that a high MW is associated with an unemployment effect, but in terms of welfare expenditures, it's easily outweighed by the fact that the majority of workers won't face unemployment, and will instead earn a "living wage" which will enable them to get off welfare. I'm not Pro-MW, but from a welfare perspective, it's pretty obviously beneficial.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:15:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 12:24:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/3/2015 11:28:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/3/2015 6:14:10 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:39:13 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

MW would hurt the working poor as job opportunities are destroyed. Welfare does not hurt the chances of job creation for the poor that truly want to work.

And if there is a means of you not to work and still be paid (Welfare programs), it hurts those that truly want to work by showing them the don't actually need to work.

Put the money in the hands of the people whom will spend it, this is done by wage increases. While the current ones on the table seem outlandish, we can't accept the current MW as a reasonable means to an end for the one working that job. They WILL be continuing to draw off the system in various fashions, especially into later years.

Welfare is better for the poor than MW because welfare may create some jobs through the "broken window" effect as welfare recipients create jobs through "trickle up." While MW can only slash jobs.

MW is a handout, welfare is a better delivery system for handouts than MW. Negative income tax is also better.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:21:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Poverty? Well, that's why we need a $15 minimum wage." - quoth the liberal

That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that if we accept the premise of Thett's article, then a high MW would be preferable to the alternative of relying on the welfare system, right...?

MW would hurt the working poor as job opportunities are destroyed. Welfare does not hurt the chances of job creation for the poor that truly want to work.

And if there is a means of you not to work and still be paid (Welfare programs), it hurts those that truly want to work by showing them the don't actually need to work.

Put the money in the hands of the people whom will spend it, this is done by wage increases. While the current ones on the table seem outlandish, we can't accept the current MW as a reasonable means to an end for the one working that job. They WILL be continuing to draw off the system in various fashions, especially into later years.

Welfare is better for the poor than MW because welfare may create some jobs through the "broken window" effect as welfare recipients create jobs through "trickle up." While MW can only slash jobs.

MW is a handout, welfare is a better delivery system for handouts than MW. Negative income tax is also better.

But "other" people are paying for Welfare and a negative income tax. There is no reason for me to subsidize an employer's labor cost through public assistance. I agree that taxation could stand to be lowered, however such would need to be diverted to those most able to support it.

Broken Window theory has nothing immediately to do with an economic/wage/employment program beyond government whim.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:25:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 3:49:52 PM, Insignifica wrote:

Disagree. It is true that a high MW is associated with an unemployment effect, but in terms of welfare expenditures, it's easily outweighed by the fact that the majority of workers won't face unemployment, and will instead earn a "living wage" which will enable them to get off welfare. I'm not Pro-MW, but from a welfare perspective, it's pretty obviously beneficial.

But it's not a living wage, it's a subsidized wage. It is charity in the form of a subsidized paycheck.

Welfare is a much better vehicle for direct charity than subsidizing substandard work.

Alot of poor people can't work, and many others don't want to work the hard work of a minimum wage job, and would love the opportunity to settle for a much less stressful job at a lower rate of pay; because the alternative for them right now is to remain unemployed. Basically for them it is MW or the highway.

Welfare takes care of all these people without the hampering effects MW causes.

People should be allowed to work low paying jobs and still collect welfare.
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 10:58:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 7:25:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/3/2015 3:49:52 PM, Insignifica wrote:

Disagree. It is true that a high MW is associated with an unemployment effect, but in terms of welfare expenditures, it's easily outweighed by the fact that the majority of workers won't face unemployment, and will instead earn a "living wage" which will enable them to get off welfare. I'm not Pro-MW, but from a welfare perspective, it's pretty obviously beneficial.


But it's not a living wage, it's a subsidized wage. It is charity in the form of a subsidized paycheck.

Welfare is a much better vehicle for direct charity than subsidizing substandard work.

Alot of poor people can't work, and many others don't want to work the hard work of a minimum wage job, and would love the opportunity to settle for a much less stressful job at a lower rate of pay; because the alternative for them right now is to remain unemployed. Basically for them it is MW or the highway.

Welfare takes care of all these people without the hampering effects MW causes.

People should be allowed to work low paying jobs and still collect welfare.

You vastly overestimate the efficacy of the traditional welfare system. Unless it is replaced with negative income taxation or at least heavily reformed, a minimum wage is always going to have two major advantages over welfare: 1) avoiding the social harms of widespread welfare dependency, and 2) putting less of a tax burden on the general populace. In its current state, we should avoid relying on the welfare system as much as possible; thett3 does a great job of describing how bad it is in his opening round of this debate [http://www.debate.org...]. That all said, though, I would still prefer to implement NIT in place of a MW.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 12:19:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 10:58:19 PM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 7:25:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/3/2015 3:49:52 PM, Insignifica wrote:

Disagree. It is true that a high MW is associated with an unemployment effect, but in terms of welfare expenditures, it's easily outweighed by the fact that the majority of workers won't face unemployment, and will instead earn a "living wage" which will enable them to get off welfare. I'm not Pro-MW, but from a welfare perspective, it's pretty obviously beneficial.


But it's not a living wage, it's a subsidized wage. It is charity in the form of a subsidized paycheck.

Welfare is a much better vehicle for direct charity than subsidizing substandard work.

Alot of poor people can't work, and many others don't want to work the hard work of a minimum wage job, and would love the opportunity to settle for a much less stressful job at a lower rate of pay; because the alternative for them right now is to remain unemployed. Basically for them it is MW or the highway.

Welfare takes care of all these people without the hampering effects MW causes.

People should be allowed to work low paying jobs and still collect welfare.

You vastly overestimate the efficacy of the traditional welfare system. Unless it is replaced with negative income taxation or at least heavily reformed, a minimum wage is always going to have two major advantages over welfare: 1) avoiding the social harms of widespread welfare dependency, and 2) putting less of a tax burden on the general populace. In its current state, we should avoid relying on the welfare system as much as possible; thett3 does a great job of describing how bad it is in his opening round of this debate [http://www.debate.org...]. That all said, though, I would still prefer to implement NIT in place of a MW.

You vastly overestimate MW if you still believe that most of the poor can work at the level of a MW job, if at all.
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 12:24:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 12:19:28 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

You vastly overestimate MW if you still believe that most of the poor can work at the level of a MW job, if at all.

...can they not?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 4:07:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 12:24:07 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/4/2015 12:19:28 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

You vastly overestimate MW if you still believe that most of the poor can work at the level of a MW job, if at all.

...can they not?

It depends on what Greyparrot meant... the answer could be that they can, or can't, depending on what he meant.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 4:22:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 10:58:19 PM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/3/2015 7:25:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/3/2015 3:49:52 PM, Insignifica wrote:

Disagree. It is true that a high MW is associated with an unemployment effect, but in terms of welfare expenditures, it's easily outweighed by the fact that the majority of workers won't face unemployment, and will instead earn a "living wage" which will enable them to get off welfare. I'm not Pro-MW, but from a welfare perspective, it's pretty obviously beneficial.


But it's not a living wage, it's a subsidized wage. It is charity in the form of a subsidized paycheck.

Welfare is a much better vehicle for direct charity than subsidizing substandard work.

Alot of poor people can't work, and many others don't want to work the hard work of a minimum wage job, and would love the opportunity to settle for a much less stressful job at a lower rate of pay; because the alternative for them right now is to remain unemployed. Basically for them it is MW or the highway.

Welfare takes care of all these people without the hampering effects MW causes.

People should be allowed to work low paying jobs and still collect welfare.

You vastly overestimate the efficacy of the traditional welfare system. Unless it is replaced with negative income taxation or at least heavily reformed, a minimum wage is always going to have two major advantages over welfare: 1) avoiding the social harms of widespread welfare dependency, and 2) putting less of a tax burden on the general populace. In its current state, we should avoid relying on the welfare system as much as possible; thett3 does a great job of describing how bad it is in his opening round of this debate [http://www.debate.org...]. That all said, though, I would still prefer to implement NIT in place of a MW.

I used to support negative income tax/minicome, but I think I've changed my mind to supporting a system where government benefits are tied to some kind of labor you perform for the government. Oh you're unemployed? Great, show up at this place at 6 AM and you can help fill in potholes, or plat trees, or pick up trash, or literally anything. Articles like these make me realize how important work, or at least having *some* reason to get up in the morning, is to the human spirit. If you don't want to show up and work that's fine, but don't expect any societal support...I would make exceptions for mothers with kids because raising your kids is important and also work. I would probably still make them work part time if they wanted benefits though.

This also goes for disability which, btw, is WILDLY abused in the US. My dad knows at least 3 people at his work who function just fine but are on disability for one stupid injury or another. My cousin is on disability from Iraq PTSD, but he said he doesnt really have PTSD and they basically give it to any combat vet. Dad could be on disability because he is legally blind in one eye but he wont take it...it's ridiculous. What was I saying? Oh yeah, disabled people can and should work for benefits too as long as they are capable. Being in a wheelchair doesn't mean you're a worthless person. If you can't find a job because you're disabled and want benefits and as long as it's reasonable (so you arent like paralyzed or mentally retarded or something) I'm sure the government could find something for you to do. Help fill our paperwork or something
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 5:15:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 4:22:37 AM, thett3 wrote:

I used to support negative income tax/minicome, but I think I've changed my mind to supporting a system where government benefits are tied to some kind of labor you perform for the government. Oh you're unemployed? Great, show up at this place at 6 AM and you can help fill in potholes, or plat trees, or pick up trash, or literally anything. Articles like these make me realize how important work, or at least having *some* reason to get up in the morning, is to the human spirit. If you don't want to show up and work that's fine, but don't expect any societal support...I would make exceptions for mothers with kids because raising your kids is important and also work. I would probably still make them work part time if they wanted benefits though.

Haha I mentioned something like that earlier in this thread. David Cameron proposed something like that too, except it was only for people ages 18-21 [http://www.bbc.com...]. Honestly, it's such an obvious solution, I don't know why it hasn't been implemented everywhere yet. Maybe there's a problem with it that I'm completely missing. Or maybe it just hasn't happened because of the attitudes of stupid liberals mentioned in the article -- "A Liberal Democrat spokesman criticised the Conservatives' proposals as 'all stick, no carrot', saying they were designed to 'punish' rather than to help people into work."


This also goes for disability which, btw, is WILDLY abused in the US. My dad knows at least 3 people at his work who function just fine but are on disability for one stupid injury or another. My cousin is on disability from Iraq PTSD, but he said he doesnt really have PTSD and they basically give it to any combat vet. Dad could be on disability because he is legally blind in one eye but he wont take it...it's ridiculous. What was I saying? Oh yeah, disabled people can and should work for benefits too as long as they are capable. Being in a wheelchair doesn't mean you're a worthless person. If you can't find a job because you're disabled and want benefits and as long as it's reasonable (so you arent like paralyzed or mentally retarded or something) I'm sure the government could find something for you to do. Help fill our paperwork or something

Lol in the UK we treat everyone as if they're "disabled"
edgar_winters
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 6:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:06:59 AM, thett3 wrote:
This is one of my favorite articles. The author, who worked extensively with the lower class in England, describes just how soul-crushing and destructive to the human spirit much of our modern society, and the welfare state in particular, really is. I think what I like best about the article is that it does not try to make any policy suggestions--for this specific issue there really is no right answer. All it attempts to do is bring to light a side of the story that most people are not even aware of.

A while ago when I started a thread where if someone posted an article to someone they had to read it I had this one in mind. I want everyone to read it but I'm particularly interested in the leftist perspective on the authors observations.

http://www.city-journal.org... : :

Poverty is when you don't understand why you're a slave to the powers of this world. Once you understand, then you will never feel impoverished again.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 9:00:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:06:59 AM, thett3 wrote:

A while ago when I started a thread where if someone posted an article to someone they had to read it I had this one in mind. I want everyone to read it but I'm particularly interested in the leftist perspective on the authors observations.

http://www.city-journal.org...

I suppose I am a bit of a leftest. I had a few thoughts after reading the article.

1: The Personal approach.

My wife and I accept support from wic. I have also accepted grant money from the government for school. We (my family and I) try to be self-reliant as much as possible, but have been unable to do so. This article did not come off as negative as some that I have seen. Often I have seen memes and opinions from some that seem to imply that all who receive any type of welfare are a part of a sick society and that And rather than stealing directly, we are having the government do for us. I have a hard time accepting assistance from anyone, and having that view expressed bothers me greatly.

This article seems to imply that when welfare becomes the norm that gratitude goes away. People become entitled punks. While I won"t deny this is true for some, it is not true for all. I cannot tell you in words how grateful I am for the assistance that society has given to me and my family. I hope that as I become more successful I can in turn contribute to the society in a way that will help others" pay it back in a way.

2: The Critical approach

It seems to me that this article argues along the lines of "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

"They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. "

we should address the issues of anti social egotism and welfare separately, at least until someone shows a real link. Simply because the society seems less grateful does not mean that the cause is the lack of poverty. It could be many things" or a combination of many things.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 12:16:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:06:59 AM, thett3 wrote:

I was hoping for a response to my input.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 3:55:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:13:03 AM, thett3 wrote:
"By the end of three months my doctors have, without exception, reversed their original opinion that the welfare state, as exemplified by England, represents the acme of civilization. On the contrary, they see it now as creating a miasma of subsidized apathy that blights the lives of its supposed beneficiaries. They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries. And what they see is all the worse, of course, because it should be so much better. The wealth that enables everyone effortlessly to have enough food should be liberating, not imprisoning. Instead, it has created a large caste of people for whom life is, in effect, a limbo in which they have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is a life emptied of meaning."

Wow talk about drawing a long bow..........

Here is problem x,y,z.......................get rid of the welfare state ?

I once heard some religious fanatic killed some one..........................lets eradicate religion.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12