Print

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

[RedKing]

Or the trailer-trash rednecks who let their kids go years without a dental visit, but have enough money for a case of Bud and a carton of smokes every week. And then vote Republican.
Because it's not necessarily greed, it's often just a case of poor prioritization. Dental care for your child > making your kid happy with a new toy, even though the child may not agree.

I know this, because I lived it first-hand. My mother is TERRIBLE at determining proper priorities. That's why she was on welfare and we were living above a gas station when I was 4. But yet, we always had beer in the fridge and cigs on the kitchen counter. It's not greed, it's ignorance and not seeing a way out.

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

There was half-serious talk in 2008 about Barack Obama having a distinct disadvantage because his first name couldn't be shortened to a simple one-syllable form, and how that emphasized his "otherness". It's kind of a given that a politician's name, at least at the national stage, needs to be one-syllable first name, two-syllable last name (maybe can get away with three if they're short, or one syllable if it's not too sing-songy)

John Ker-ry
John Mc-Cain
John Ed-wards
Rick San-to-rum
Rick Per-ry
George Bush
Bill Clin-ton
Newt Gin-grich
Mitt Rom-ney
Slam Squat-thrust
Big McLarge-huge
...you get the idea. I've also heard it said that is/was one of the problems with both Ron Paul and Bob Dole. Too sing-songy, too easy to make sound silly.

This, I think MZ should run for office under the pseudonym "Dirk Facepunch". Strong, concise, manly, slightly threatening....you think to yourself "Dirk Facepunch sounds like a real red-blooded American, the kind of guy you wouldn't want to mess with!" 

[FearfulJesuit]

GODDAMNIT LET ME POST ARGH

And dhokarena - Why? That's the key thing, justify this 'need' to make it more accountable. (And even then, you'd have to justify the costs)

I've never understand the argument - it's like saying that I shouldn't give food to the homeless because some of them are mentally ill. It's like... what?

"We shouldn't support people who lack ambition" just seems kind of odd to me.

Well, for example, in Finland, you can become a high school dropout at age 16, but by doing so you forfeit the possibility of unemployment payments. To get those, you need to continue into trade school or university-track high school.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The mentally ill are of course another matter.

[GlyphGryph]

I have no idea what relevance that had to my question of justification?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

Like the fortieth time this topic has made me spray coffee out my nose.

[FearfulJesuit]

I have no idea what relevance that had to my question of justification?

I may have misphrased. You can see it either as making people more accountable, or as making the system more sustainable. By using the stick of no unemployment payments, for example, Finland ensures that it doesn't have to shell out more because people continue their education and get a marketable skill.

And call me a cynic, call me a conservative, but I do think there should be sticks, not just carrots, against poor prioritizing.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm also assuming you mean 'unemployment payments' to mean something different than it means in the US, then. Because otherwise those just seems like a dick thing to go.

[Mephansteras]

I have no idea what relevance that had to my question of justification?

Well, the difference between justifying why "you" should or should not give money to the homeless is different from saying that part of everyone's taxes should go to the homeless.

It has to be justified because the guy working two jobs and 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed and housed doesn't see any reason why his money, that he works very hard for, so should go to someone who sits around all day. If it was charity money, sure, that was given voluntarily. But tax money isn't voluntary, so people get touchy about it.

Of course, it's silly anyway. The same guy who gets livid that some 'bum on the street' gets free money (for, you know, food) just shrugs off government waste and pork projects because 'that's just how things are'. So the government spending $2 million dollars on some useless project to line some corporation's pockets is ok, but if that money goes to 'welfare' it's wrong.

But that's how people are. The guy can't relate to a corporation, but he can relate to another single person. So he gets mad about a small handout to an individual when he should be more concerned about the huge amounts of money going to people who are already rich.

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm also assuming you mean 'unemployment payments' to mean something different than it means in the US, then. Because otherwise those just seems like a dick thing to go.

I'm not entirely sure how the system works in the details, but I expect it's probably a guaranteed minimum income that's being talked about.

[Gantolandon]

I love how he will create a government funded underclass.  Only in GOP land would the parasites be cackling in glee at being at the bottom of the totem pole.

Actually, it's the same in Toryland too in the UK. Some right wingers and conservatives are convinced that people "live off the system" because they are feckless and whatnot.

It takes hilarious (and depressing) forms sometimes. Where I live, common knowledge claims that there are actually two kind of beggars. The first one is the usual alcoholic, drug-abusing, lazy degenerate who maybe doesn't have anything, but IT'S ALL HIS FAULT! The second is the one who fares so well, that he gets more money than he would honestly earn, wears designer clothes and drives a nice car when not "at work". Sometimes tabloids release interviews with them - of course, they are laughing in contempt at all those losers who give them money.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, in the US unemployment compensation is directly tied to whatever job you were recently let go from. Not all jobs qualify, but if you worked for long enough your company pays into the pot to insure that you'll be taken care of while you look for someplace else to go. Having to add limitations about how many years of schooling you took a dozen years ago just seems like the dickest thing a government could do. Put in 10 years and then have your job outsourced? SUCKS FOR YOU SHOULD HAVE FINISHED SCHOOL HAHA.

I could see, maybe, a "finish school OR work for however many years", but at least in the US a lot of our high school dropouts do so because they need to support their families, or themselves (if they've been kicked out) by working. And it seems strange to punish that, when welfare is the thing that would have changed it from happening to begin with (most would rather be able to learn a skill and make more money, I would think)

Meph:
It reminds me of the people who yell and shout over those "dirt freeloaders and national healthcare, I don't want to pay for other people" but never seem to realize that their insurance premium every month is going to... you guessed it, pay for other people's problems! (In addition to a decent chunk of change from every medical bill paid)

[kaijyuu]

Well, the difference between justifying why "you" should or should not give money to the homeless is different from saying that part of everyone's taxes should go to the homeless.

It has to be justified because the guy working two jobs and 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed and housed doesn't see any reason why his money, that he works very hard for, so should go to someone who sits around all day. If it was charity money, sure, that was given voluntarily. But tax money isn't voluntary, so people get touchy about it.

The way I see it, a properly instituted welfare system is more analogous to infrastructure than charity. That dude working 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed definitely should be getting something too; exactly the same amount, even.

The problem with charities that deal with economic problems (and most government welfare programs, as well) is there is an incentive for people to stay where they are. If they work more, they can actually lose money. So they stay where they are. There's a sort of "hump" they have to cross before working more actually equates to getting a reasonably higher income.

That's why my ideal welfare systems wouldn't ever take anything away as people's economic situation improves. That's why I say Bill Gates should be able to pick up food stamps if he wants. It should be like infrastructure; everyone pays the same amount even if they don't use it the same amount or in the same way. You don't suddenly start expecting people to build their own roads once they could reasonably afford it. Your rich dude still gets to use it for free. Same should be done with the less expensive necessities. Then people can't complain others are getting "something for nothing" as they're getting it too.

[Zrk2]

Well, the difference between justifying why "you" should or should not give money to the homeless is different from saying that part of everyone's taxes should go to the homeless.

It has to be justified because the guy working two jobs and 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed and housed doesn't see any reason why his money, that he works very hard for, so should go to someone who sits around all day. If it was charity money, sure, that was given voluntarily. But tax money isn't voluntary, so people get touchy about it.

The way I see it, a properly instituted welfare system is more analogous to infrastructure than charity. That dude working 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed definitely should be getting something too; exactly the same amount, even.

The problem with charities that deal with economic problems (and most government welfare programs, as well) is there is an incentive for people to stay where they are. If they work more, they can actually lose money. So they stay where they are. There's a sort of "hump" they have to cross before working more actually equates to getting a reasonably higher income.

That's why my ideal welfare systems wouldn't ever take anything away as people's economic situation improves. That's why I say Bill Gates should be able to pick up food stamps if he wants. It should be like infrastructure; everyone pays the same amount even if they don't use it the same amount or in the same way. You don't suddenly start expecting people to build their own roads once they could reasonably afford it. Your rich dude still gets to use it for free. Same should be done with the less expensive necessities. Then people can't complain others are getting "something for nothing" as they're getting it too.

So the idea of a guaranteed income type thing, only it gets sent to everyone?

[kaijyuu]

Indeed. But like food stamps, the income could only be used for certain things. No going and gambling away your government issued check, nor spending all your food money on a particularly exquisite bagel (unless you made that money yourself).

[Nadaka]

Its possible. However granting every household a handout that would place them the at the poverty line would take 20something% of taxable personal income, give or take. I've calculated that before, but I don't have any references handy.

[GlyphGryph]

That's the basic premise of the negative income tax - it's not welfare if everyone gets it. No questions about who "deserves" it or not, just like we don't talk (much) about who "deserves" to use roads or parks or the court system.

The difference of course, is that it gives you real money instead of the fake money kaijyuu wants to give them. (I think if someone wants to tighten the belt in other areas to push more of the money into starting a business, they should be allowed to).