Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Nenjin, I support limited assistance. Time limited, and rate limited. When the money will run out, you look for ways to support yourself.

Being poor isn't just a six month thing, as you know. Being black is forever. Being perceived as ghetto despite being an aight guy can be forever. The only way you over come the stereotype is by being skilled at something useful and being good at it. But how are you supposed to do that when you go to a school in a ghetto that no one gives a fuck about and no law or even belief exists that you should get help? "We support limited assistance for schools. Time limited, rate limited. When the money will run out, you look for ways to support the school yourself." And since what money schools get still goes through state government first....when the people holding the purse strings looks at the data and goes "they're all fuckups, fuck em", even promising people can get trapped in a place they can't escape. And maybe their natural good character and try-hard will get them out of it. But since we're talking averages here, how much more of them would have succeeded if someone actually, truly gave a fuck. Enough they're willing to risk the money going to shitheads so they can help one person actually live the dream.

Trust me, I've known some fucks too and I don't disagree that welfare reform needs to happen on some levels. But welfare traps/fraud is hardly the basis for an entire attitude that basically kicks someone out of society with no formal declaration. Shit at least in prison they'd feed you. Why not fulfill the stereotype then? You seem oblivious to the cyclical problem you say you hate.

Being black is not a permanent disadvantage, and promulgating that falsehood is racist as fuck, and demotivating as fuck.

I have worked with a fellow " by the bootstraps" guy, who was black, and designed ICs for Texas Instruments. He and I were in complete agreement on this matter. We discussed living in ghettos, and the trap of being told you can never achieve.

If you are seriously telling people they will never have better than other people because if something as bullshit as gender or race, you sir are causing terrible harm.

[smjjames]

I think he was talking about perceptions, not actual disadvantages there weird.

The fact that there are shitty schools IS a problem though.

[wierd]

wierd: But prison is more expensive than welfare, and it's prisons which balloon when you do what you're suggesting.

"Cutting people loose" isn't some simple thing where those people are no longer members of society. Doing that causes:

- disease outbreaks
- generations of malnourished uneducated kids
- more crime
- urban militarization and large prison complexes
- higher insurance premiums
- more business costs (higher security requirements)
- less economic stability

No question, but kids taught to live on welfare systemically make terrible choices, being removed from the consequences. They make more kids who they teach to be on welfare, who make more bad choices.

Pick an evil Reela. Pick an evil.

[Reelya]

The problem is that welfare provides one of the few stable predictable flow of income into ghetto areas. Basically pulling out welfare money reduces the total economic activity of the ghetto area. Sure, you can get offended by lazy people getting money to buy groceries or whatever, but taking that out reduces some working person's opportunity to take their money. Say $20 million in welfare money a year goes into a ghetto, and you get offended by that, well you can reduce that to zero, but that's $20 million less in sales that commercial enterprises in the region are now making, with the job losses that go with that.

So you take the welfare money out of the ghetto, because you managed to find work and pulled yourself up, but where are they going to work if at the very same time, shops are being closed down and people are being sacked who used to service that region? The whole point is that money circulates, and many of the jobs in welfare-dependent areas are in fact only there because of the welfare money.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Go back 4 pages, and read my position, then come back again.

I'll be here.

link pls

Here you go.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159257.msg7282156#msg7282156


Nenjin, re education.

This is the age with the single easiest access to knowledge EVER.  Self education is not only possible, it is exactly what I did, and despite being so poor as a child that I wore hand me down shoes and hone made clothes made of fabric remnants that were on sale, I now make more than 200k a year in aerospace.

Opportunity is there. These are not feudal times. You just need to apply yourself.

I assist those I see trying to do that, and help them succeed. I am less inclined to feed the poverty of people unwilling to better themselves.

(You're in aerospace?! SQUEEEE!!~ [In case you can't tell I like aerospace QUITE A BIT!] What do you do??)

I don't want to misinterpret you, so I'll ask this in very clear terms.

Do you agree with the following sentence?

"The majority of Americans at or below the poverty level have the ability to improve their fiscal situation to above the poverty line."

How about this one?

"The majority of Americans at or below the poverty level have the ability to improve their fiscal situation to above the poverty line, and consciously choose not to do so."

Nenjin, I support limited assistance. Time limited, and rate limited. When the money will run out, you look for ways to support yourself.

Being poor isn't just a six month thing, as you know. Being black is forever. Being perceived as ghetto despite being an aight guy can be forever. The only way you over come the stereotype is by being skilled at something useful and being good at it. But how are you supposed to do that when you go to a school in a ghetto that no one gives a fuck about and no law or even belief exists that you should get help? "We support limited assistance for schools. Time limited, rate limited. When the money will run out, you look for ways to support the school yourself." And since what money schools get still goes through state government first....when the people holding the purse strings looks at the data and goes "they're all fuckups, fuck em", even promising people can get trapped in a place they can't escape. And maybe their natural good character and try-hard will get them out of it. But since we're talking averages here, how much more of them would have succeeded if someone actually, truly gave a fuck. Enough they're willing to risk the money going to shitheads so they can help one person actually live the dream.

Trust me, I've known some fucks too and I don't disagree that welfare reform needs to happen on some levels. But welfare traps/fraud is hardly the basis for an entire attitude that basically kicks someone out of society with no formal declaration. Shit at least in prison they'd feed you. Why not fulfill the stereotype then? You seem oblivious to the cyclical problem you say you hate.

Being black is not a permanent disadvantage, and promulgating that falsehood is racist as fuck, and demotivating as fuck.

...no, it's not racist to say that racism is prevalent, what the fuck do you mean? African-Americans don't tend to do as well, not because of any intrinsic lesser-ness, but because of the way they are treated!

I have worked with a fellow " by the bootstraps" guy, who was black, and designed ICs for Texas Instruments. He and I were in complete agreement on this matter. We discussed living in ghettos, and the trap of being told you can never achieve.

It's a good thing that we don't tell ghetto-ites that they can't achieve, then. Because assisting people is the same as telling them that they'll never make it! Just abandon them, and they'll do so much better! (kind of a strawman, but I'm trying to poke at some inconsistencies)

If you are seriously telling people they will never have better than other people because if something as bullshit as gender or race, you sir are causing terrible harm.

...if you ever come around and see things our way, you'll have a hell of a shock. Yes, inequality based on ethnicity, sex, etc. exists.

[wierd]

Reela.

I support welfare. Below min wage, where it won't cause perverse incentive.

You raise wages for everyone by encouraging market growth, and reducing opportunity costs. That makes entry level jobs desirable, and paints a real path out of poverty.

You don't fix poverty with free rides. That subsidizes poverty. I've been there, and I have seen it.

[Wolfhunter107]

wierd: But prison is more expensive than welfare, and it's prisons which balloon when you do what you're suggesting.

"Cutting people loose" isn't some simple thing where those people are no longer members of society. Doing that causes:

- disease outbreaks
- generations of malnourished uneducated kids
- more crime
- urban militarization and large prison complexes
- higher insurance premiums
- more business costs (higher security requirements)
- less economic stability

No question, but kids taught to live on welfare systemically make terrible choices, being removed from the consequences. They make more kids who they teach to be on welfare, who make more bad choices.

Pick an evil Reela. Pick an evil.

So what, is being born poor a terrible choice now? Cutting people off from their only source of income for food is not going to magically get them a job or make them success stories like you think it will, and don't delude yourself otherwise.

[wierd]

Go back 4 pages, and read my position, then come back again.

I'll be here.

link pls

Here you go.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159257.msg7282156#msg7282156


Nenjin, re education.

This is the age with the single easiest access to knowledge EVER.  Self education is not only possible, it is exactly what I did, and despite being so poor as a child that I wore hand me down shoes and hone made clothes made of fabric remnants that were on sale, I now make more than 200k a year in aerospace.

Opportunity is there. These are not feudal times. You just need to apply yourself.

I assist those I see trying to do that, and help them succeed. I am less inclined to feed the poverty of people unwilling to better themselves.

(You're in aerospace?! SQUEEEE!!~ [In case you can't tell I like aerospace QUITE A BIT!] What do you do??)

I don't want to misinterpret you, so I'll ask this in very clear terms.

Do you agree with the following sentence?

"The majority of Americans at or below the poverty level have the ability to improve their fiscal situation to above the poverty line."

How about this one?

"The majority of Americans at or below the poverty level have the ability to improve their fiscal situation to above the poverty line, and consciously choose not to do so."

Nenjin, I support limited assistance. Time limited, and rate limited. When the money will run out, you look for ways to support yourself.

Being poor isn't just a six month thing, as you know. Being black is forever. Being perceived as ghetto despite being an aight guy can be forever. The only way you over come the stereotype is by being skilled at something useful and being good at it. But how are you supposed to do that when you go to a school in a ghetto that no one gives a fuck about and no law or even belief exists that you should get help? "We support limited assistance for schools. Time limited, rate limited. When the money will run out, you look for ways to support the school yourself." And since what money schools get still goes through state government first....when the people holding the purse strings looks at the data and goes "they're all fuckups, fuck em", even promising people can get trapped in a place they can't escape. And maybe their natural good character and try-hard will get them out of it. But since we're talking averages here, how much more of them would have succeeded if someone actually, truly gave a fuck. Enough they're willing to risk the money going to shitheads so they can help one person actually live the dream.

Trust me, I've known some fucks too and I don't disagree that welfare reform needs to happen on some levels. But welfare traps/fraud is hardly the basis for an entire attitude that basically kicks someone out of society with no formal declaration. Shit at least in prison they'd feed you. Why not fulfill the stereotype then? You seem oblivious to the cyclical problem you say you hate.

Being black is not a permanent disadvantage, and promulgating that falsehood is racist as fuck, and demotivating as fuck.

...no, it's not racist to say that racism is prevalent, what the fuck do you mean? African-Americans don't tend to do as well, not because of any intrinsic lesser-ness, but because of the way they are treated!

I have worked with a fellow " by the bootstraps" guy, who was black, and designed ICs for Texas Instruments. He and I were in complete agreement on this matter. We discussed living in ghettos, and the trap of being told you can never achieve.

It's a good thing that we don't tell ghetto-ites that they can't achieve, then. Because assisting people is the same as telling them that they'll never make it! Just abandon them, and they'll do so much better!

If you are seriously telling people they will never have better than other people because if something as bullshit as gender or race, you sir are causing terrible harm.

...if you ever open your eyes, you'll have a hell of a shock. Yes, inequality based on ethnicity, sex, etc. exists.

I am a CNC programmer who programs industrial milling machines that cut aviation components from blocks of solid metal. I also have the skillset to design such parts. I get payed very well for this.

Your other questions are a false dichotomy though.

For the first two questions, no to both.
The unasked question:

Do enough poor people in america refuse to better themselves that they are destroying the chances if the others through abuse if the system?

That one is the yes.

As somebody who saw "middle class" as a tiny point of light at the top of the sky, trust me, that far down, you don't want to go down further, but that is what happens when you give too much assist via welfare.

The govt can't give you a 200k earning value.
Improving yourself can.

When you have to go deeper to get there though, you ate strongly dismotivated.  When you have nothing but personal time, and healthcare, and enough to eat. Why bother working 8hrs a day or more for less?

That is the problem.

[smjjames]

You raise wages for everyone by encouraging market growth, and reducing opportunity costs. That makes entry level jobs desirable, and paints a real path out of poverty.

How about a min wage that is a bit below the poverty line (which is going to vary some from state to state)?

You don't fix poverty with free rides. That subsidizes poverty. I've been there, and I have seen it.

What's your idea then?

To throw out an idea: How about some sort of fixed buffer that overlays the transition between welfare and not welfare? Sounds like the problem is the valley (or canyon?) in the middle of that because it gets worse before it gets better, which, as people have said, is a disincentive.

[PTTG??]

I am a CNC programmer who programs industrial milling machines that cut aviation components from blocks of solid metal. I also have the skillset to design such parts. I get payed very well for this.

Your other questions are a false dichotomy though.

For the first two questions, no to both.
The unasked question:

Do enough poor people in america refuse to better themselves that they are destroying the chances if the others through abuse if the system?

That one is the yes.

Gonna need a citation for that.

[McTraveller]

Dang I take forever to respond...

What has rights? A person, right? What makes a person? Not human DNA, obviously - human ears aren't people. Nor are brain-dead humans that still have functioning organs. Aliens could also be people. So something being "alive" or "human" doesn't make it a right-bearing entity. But what exactly is a person?

I'd argue that personhood is the result of sapience (sentience, self-awareness, consciousness, et cetera). And what is a necessary attribute for sapience? The ability to think and perceive. AFAIK, fetuses cannot perceive, sense, etc. until they are ~30 weeks old. (This might be smaller; at week 27 fetuses can operate their limbs and such, but still... there are a few months of pregnancy before fetuses can be said to be sapient.)

So...to continue the point here - why does a "person" have these rights in the first place? Why does sapience have anything to do with it in the first place?

Where do we draw the line? I could see the argument made that we shouldn't perform abortions on 37-week-old fetuses, but that doesn't really happen (save for medical reasons). Most abortions happen in the early months, far before fetuses can sense or move.

So you'd be ok with killing brain damaged people if they can't think or perceive any more? I admit that's a bit devil's advocate - but is there a difference? Why would you make a such a difference? I'd argue that it's just to make ourselves feel better, which isn't a really good reason.  Is the entire difference the fact that a growing baby requires a host mother?  Here's a thought from dystopian sci-fi: why don't baby's rights outweigh the mother's? After all, the whole purpose of the mother is so the infant can be created, isn't it? (Selfish gene theory and all that jazz).

Is something being killed? That's also debatable - fetuses act as "parasites", mostly, until the latest part of pregnancy. Not in the "augh infection kill it with fire" sense, not an emotionally-loaded term, just describing how they are not viable. But what if you don't consider them to be "parasites"? Are they a "bud" of the mother? I disagree - fetuses are separate organisms, so yes, something is being killed.

But we kill animals, we kill bacteria, we kill plants. Killing isn't in and of itself bad. Murder is bad because it's killing people. Killing animals might be bad because it is killing entities with the ability to perceive and (somewhat) think. Embryos can't do either.

Developing humans can perceive really quite early on actually. So what's the threshold? It shouldn't be arbitrary, but how do you pick? Is the whole argument because an embryo is inside a woman it shouldn't matter?  Or I'll go back to this - why does sapience matter as a criteria? And if sapience does matter - why does it matter if a creature has sapience or is a creature capable of developing sapience had it been left alone for a few months or if it was sapient and lost sapience due to age or disease or accident?

Furthermore, abortion is a difficult decision. You don't have mothers thinking "eh, I'll just pop off to the doctor's and murder this baby in me." Why should the government do this - if the embryo is not a person, which it isn't, why should the government control and limit a medical procedure?

Wait what? The government controls and limits all sorts of medical procedures.  And what does the "difficulty" of the decision have to do with it?

Birth control is equivalent to stopping people from having sex is equivalent to early abortion. They all prevent a human life from forming. Is that undesirable? Perhaps. But it is the choice of the mother, just like it is the choice of the mother to not have sex, and its difficult one. She doesn't need the government to tell her how to choose.

I don't agree with that equivocation. There is at the very least a significant chemical and physiological difference between failure to fertilize an egg and abortion.  In a more "person" sense there is a difference between "I don't want to become pregnant, so I will take precautionary action" and "I think I might have become / know I am pregnant and I don't want to be."

Also what about the fact that a man can try to ensure pre-conception birth control equally as a woman, but cannot (legally) compel a woman to have or forego an abortion?

And sometimes it's for medical reasons, or rape.

So medical necessity is actually a rarity, and it the one situation where I would personally have trouble making such a decision, and I don't envy anyone who has to make such a decision.

Regarding violent situations: I can understand why someone would make that decision, but I disagree with it.  My sentiment on that one is about the same as if someone chose to take up heavy alcohol consumption after some similar traumatic event - I can understand it, but not support the action.

Suffice it to say - the entire subject of abortion is just a mess because of the inability for humanity to agree on a fundamental basis for deciding "when an embryo deserves protection"; so the best we get is majority opinion often with a very vocal minority.

RANDOM: They must put something in the water for aerospace people. Like @Wierd I also have aerospace roots. Uncanny. (Mine was doing aircraft engine controller electronics and software design.)

[Neonivek]

Anyhow I don't think ANYONE wants to get rid of welfare.

Nor does anyone suggest that increasing OR decreasing it would automatically achieve positive results.

[smjjames]

If we can't do anything about welfare, as it's in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' sort of situation, what about smoothing the transition out of welfare instead of the gap that exists in the transition. Or even some sort of incentive to actually work (no idea what that would be)....

[wierd]

I am a CNC programmer who programs industrial milling machines that cut aviation components from blocks of solid metal. I also have the skillset to design such parts. I get payed very well for this.

Your other questions are a false dichotomy though.

For the first two questions, no to both.
The unasked question:

Do enough poor people in america refuse to better themselves that they are destroying the chances if the others through abuse if the system?

That one is the yes.

Gonna need a citation for that.

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_918.html

When welfare cannot help asset poor people on the one-offs that life throws at them, they become impoverished.

More people enter poverty this way than through income poverty, and the current system ignores them, because they make too much money.

Reversing that situation, and focusing on asset poverty will help many more families and lives for the same money than focusing on income poverty.

For the costs of sustaining one individual on permanent assist for a year, you can help dozens of others to avoid poverty.

[Reelya]

One example of an idea that backfired was conservatives in Australia who brought in community service requirements for welfare recipients. The idea was that having to do community service work would push the lazy welfare recipients towards seeking work, to get away from the obligations.

In fact, it had the opposite effect: doing community service made the welfare recipients happier, and reduced their incentives to find paid work. What they didn't understand here was human nature, due to their negative caricature of the "typical welfare recipient" as lazy evil people who don't want to do anything for others. Basic human needs include dignity and social contact, and either work or community service can provide those.

@wierd: the link you provided has zero% relationship to anything you're talking about. please stop linking unless you can show some relevance to your argument. your link is about how low levels of asset/home ownership are an alternate measure of poverty to income poverty. That has nothing to do with what you're talking about. How long would it take to buy a house on minimum wage? And if that's not practical, then how will slashing welfare below minimum wage improve home ownership and savings?