Unfairness of Life and Welfare/Entitlements

Post Reply New Topic

We get food stamps and my kids all got Medicaid when they were under 19. I got WIC when I was pregnant and nursing and the kids were under 5. Our income fell within the limits for it and it really helped. Food stamps help a whole lot right now. Sometimes we wouldn't eat without them.

What I think isn't fair is the way some people fake disability and get that, food stamps, medicaid, etc. I know somebody who does that. He works sometimes under the table. I remember they used to do drop in visits on people who got those things. I wonder if it's time to bring that back.

I'd agree with the Democrats here on most points - Heck, I used to work on Democratic campaigns - but you're still a pot calling the kettle black.

I still haven't forgotten John Stewart brow-beating Bill O'Rielly over the number of right-wingers who equate church-going with morality. I'm atheist, so you'd get no argument from me, but I'd also say exactly the same thing about Democrats' own institutions. They equate education with competence, and I've know quite a few who kept their GPAs high by taking puff courses.

I worked as a volunteer coordinator for HFH, and damned if most of the money didn't go to lackluster staff rather than the poor people we were supposed to help.

I never believed in trickle-down economics, but college aid is trickle-down on the spending side. It goes to rich kids, and it's justified with the claim that their subsequent wealth will somehow help the poor. Not only do US colleges fail to produce measurable improvement in critical thinking skills, but they've never come up with data to prove that any of the unjustly distributed cash that they rake in raises the living standard of the poor. It's just faith.

I never liked ruthless market competition (because it's short term and arbitrary), but Democrats love exactly the same dysfunction in colleges. The main campus in my sky-blue state added tuition penalties for (working) students who take more than four years to graduate. Why? Probably because it's run by plutocrats who know that their own kids will benefit. Nationally, they act like it's an epiphany that knowledge-based admission tests (rather than talent-based tests) favor rich kids whose parents can afford tutoring. I honestly don't know anyone who's worked a real job who would be surprised by that. If you watch your coworkers develop over time, the ones with the most required knowledge on day-one aren't always the best at growing in the position or solving really vexing problems.

So could you spare the pious criticisms of the (admittedly bogus) right until you clean up your own acts? I shake my head every time I hear Democrats lampoon climate-change "deniers," since it's their base that believes in UFOs and the like:)

You guys should listen to Alan Turing, not Keith Olberman: '[H]e found the Marxist institutions on campus just as suffocating as the public school that he attended. Turing "was not interested in organising anyone, [...] and did not wish to be organised by anyone else. He had escaped from one totalitarian system, and had no yearning for another.'

(http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... an-turing/)

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 08 Apr 2014, 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NobodyKnows your whole post is irrelevant to what I am trying to get at. Maybe I should not have focused on conservatives but it does seem like a lot of people bash people over the head for whining about the unfairness of life yet whine and complain when they can't get their own version of fairness? A lot of people I have met IRL do this and members on here do this.

The point is I do not grasp why this inconsistent standard exists. Why is it okay to whine about one version of unfairness yet it is not okay to whine about another version of unfairness? Why wouldn't these folks just get on with their lives and slog on like they demand another set of whiners do? I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Why do inconsistent values and standards exist such as this? It isn't about democrats, republicans, socialists or conservatives but understanding the reasoning behind inconsistencies such as this.

I meant it as a response to some later posts more than yours. Your original point is right. It is irksome to hear someone say "life's not fair" (one of my least favorite phrases as a kid) when the topic is earnings, only to complain about unequal labor later; but is that any worse, or any different, from another group saying "life should be fair," only to look the other way when unfairness benefits them?

In both cases you have people trotting out a principle that should oblige them to act in a specific way, then failing to do so when it's no longer in their interests.

I see that the straw man conservative is well represented in this thread...

The time will come, where money shall find its end. its not a matter of if, but when.
Necessity dictates change.

It was a good enough job for me for 20 years, until George Bush wrecked the economy. Now I'm getting my money from the Government, the same way the rich do.

^qft

"There is no justice. Just us."

Life being unfair is the reason for welfare programs, but fairness is not the intent. It is designed to be a safety net, not a system to make everyone equal. If you are on government assistance, that doesn't make you economically equal to someone who makes too much to qualify.



So you don't think your personal income should come into play when determining your eligibility?



So you know a lot of people making a living wage under the table? You know a lot of people willing to put all of their assets in another person's name?



Not entirely true. An anonymous complaint is enough for an investigation to be opened. A smoking gun is needed prosecute. And they do not have to rely on you providing your information, they can obtain it without your knowledge (part of the application procedure counts as your consent for independant verification of the information you provide. And just for the record, if you are investigated and it is discovered that you overstated your income and assets you are just as liable under the law (although more liberal court districts will likely dismiss these cases without any real consideration).


It is not.


Which is why income is the standard. It is the most reliable metric (even though it is flawed).



And again, it isn't about making things fair, it is about making it possible to pull yourself out of the crap hole.



So a person cannot afford to pay rent, have electricity, or eat. So you don't give them any assistance because it enables them? How many people do you know that receive government assistance that can do anything more than scrape by? Have you ever had to decide whether to feed your kids something other than Ramen or $.99 McDonald's crap this week or to keep the heat on next week? Have you ever been so hungry that you seriously considered risking the penalties to steal a sandwhich from 7-11?



And this is NEVER the case. Government assistance is not enough to live a safe and healthy life or to provide one for your children. Even a person with a full time minimum wage job who receives food assistance and WIC for the kiddies is going to be screwed if (or should I say when) something unexpected and expensive pops up.



Precisley why those born into abject poverty should not be ignored, demonized, and/or treated as sub-human.

I'm less bothered by welfare for the dirt poor, and more by redistributing wealth to an already-posh "middle" class. Middle of what? The "G1"? That's some serious first-world angst. How can a person who spends $1,000+ per year on their cable bill be seen as disadvantaged?

I grew up in a lopsidedly Democratic city where it was assumed that anyone who wasn't a "loser" would go to college. Most people in my age group went on their parents' money, spent their time binge drinking, and didn't study. I'm not sure how they could be qualified to call anyone a loser. I studied on my own (for which I got zero credit) and managed to put myself in a better financial situation then most of them, despite not having the subsidy that they had. (They were allowed to stay on their parents' health plans, paid less for car insurance, and got preferential treatment when looking for housing and jobs.)

They tried to paint me as a low-achiever in the eyes of all of the desirable girls durig my prime dating years. Then when all of their non-studying and non-working left them deservedly broke, they switched their tune and pretended to be victims. What's too much tough-love for someone whose behavior has been nothing but nasty, conniving, greedy and rude?

Good point.

There are more than enough people who have things they simply should have have if they are on public assistance.

While this is true for a minority of welfare recipients, you can see them with EXPENSIVE shoes (based on style, not need....quality New Balance can be bought for under $40 and last a couple years...easy), or walking about with newer iPhones with full service contracts or God only knows what else. It's offensive to see someone buy expensive steak and lobster on food stamps when you can't even afford hamburger.

The poorest of Americans have it better than most everyone in 3rd world countries. That doesn't mean their needs aren't real, but if it's society's job to provide you with habitation, clothing, food and health care, what's the incentive to go out and work?

Relative income inequality is very important, regardless of what fairness doctrine you subscribe to.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw[/youtube]

Am I under any illusion that people in the first world are privileged materially? No

Material wealth means nothing when you lack freedom. People who don't have freedom in their own labour are torn apart psychologically. You tell people to suppress their emotions. You take away their will and personality. You are basically killing them. This is what happens in the regime you worship. People forced to rent themselves out to get food on the table. People at the mercy of the owners of society. Freedom demands equality. There is nothing trivial about social and economic inequality.


Are you saying people wouldn't value work without external rewards? What are you doing right now? Your worrying about work not being done. I don't like to watch television, I would rather do something. People work when you let them do it under their own terms.

External rewards kill our motivations, because they draw our attention to the external reward, and shift our focus away from the value of the task itself.

You are projecting your opinions on the rest of society. Many people like to watch television. Your (false) willingness to work without external reward is not representative of typical human behavior.


This makes no sense. Motivation is the root of action. We are motivated by dissatisfaction and act accordingly. If you are 100% satisfied, you will take no action. You would not go outside and dig a hole and fill it in again for no purpose.

You don't understand what I mean when I say external reward. This isn't just an opinion; there are studies out there you can look at.

Last edited by RushKing on 09 Apr 2014, 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So long as humans remain aristocratic by nature, this will never happen. I see no evidence in history that suggests that human behavior can change to the degree that would be required to eliminate trade.

I'm assuming you are differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. My experience in life has demonstrated to me that intrinsic motivation is just a clever way of talking about long-term extrinsic motivation (you are "intrinsically motivated" to master a subject, with the end goal of utilizing that knowledge to your advantage).