DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on October 19, 2007, 05:10:41 PM
-
URINE TEST
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the
government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have
no problem. What I Do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who
Don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare
check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I Do, on the
other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT, doing drugs, while I work.
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.
Hope you all will pass it along, though . . .something has to change in this country -- and soon!
-
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
===========================================================================
Probably very little. Tests are easy to fake. Test givers are easily bribed. I am not convinced this guy is working with a full deck.
--------------------------------------
The problem here is that anyone has to take a routine urine test to keep their job. That's a excessive invasion of privacy. One test is okay, several per year is too many.
You can buy powder to mix with water and "clean" urine and pass most every test, unless they actually force you to let them see you pee.
I further suggest that having a job where you have to watch people pee every day is also a bit of an invasion of privacy, as well as very, very weird.
-
Some people earn big bucks and pay huge taxes and DON'T have to pass a urine test. Couldn't pass one if their life depended on it. They're in the entertainment and publishing businesses.
They probably support a hell of a lot more welfare recipients than you do.
Do you think they have as much or more right than you do to enforce their personal code of conduct (probably some variation on "Party hard, die young and leave a good-looking corpse") on those who receive welfare cheques funded by their taxes?
The way I look at it, welfare is available without discrimination to all who exercise their right to the pursuit of happiness wisely or unwisely and not in accordance with the commandments of CU4 or anyone else. IMHO most welfare recipients ARE welfare recipients precisely because of their own bad choices in life superimposed on factors over which they had no choice at all. Why start singling out one set of bad choices as opposed to any other?
-
The problem here is that anyone has to take a routine urine test to keep their job
tee you don't want your airline pilots being drug tested?
i think those pilots they found drunk about to take off with a plane
load of passengers should have been tried and if guilty executed
(http://www.top5.lt/wp-content/data/2007/03/top5-fun-image0017.jpg)
-
Some people earn big bucks and pay huge taxes and DON'T have to pass a urine test
yeah tee, but they aren't leeching off someone else
big difference don't ya think?
-
It`s called do by example
most business will not do random urine test because it cost too much
I always say if they asked you to pee .you pretty much got the job
so welfare will no likely do this since it`s a added expense
it not like they got the money to do this.
-
Sure I want my airline pilots tested. There are a small group of people whose fuckups could cause major loss of human life, and they oughtta be tested. Everybody else, welfare recipients included, unless by some hugely unlikely chance, they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of other human beings, don't need to be tested. The test is a fucking insult as a matter of fact.
Welfare recipients are by definition people whose fuckups have put them on welfare. Who knows what particular fuckups landed them there and who gives a shit anyway? If their fuckup was drugs they should get cut off but if their fuckup was gambling, they get their own share plus maybe the junky's, who just got cut off? Makes no sense at all. The principle of welfare is charity. I don't think charity distinguishes between fuckups. They're all fuckups and they all NEED help. So give 'em the help they need. What the fuck did Jesus say? Give what you can to him who asks. They're all asking and thank God we can afford to give. The taxman hasn't bankrupted me yet. Hasn't bankrupted that selfish prick Rush Limbaugh either as far as I can tell.
<<yeah tee, but they aren't leeching off someone else>>
Well, let's look at it clearly. They aren't leeching off someone else and you aren't leeching off someone else. They pay taxes that ultimately go into some welfare bum's pocket and you pay taxes that ultimately go into some welfare bum's pocket. The only difference is that they are doing every drug known to God and man and you are "clean." But somehow you think YOU have the right to dictate lifestyle choices to the bums who live off the proceeds of your taxes, but the hard-partying entertainers who probably support a thousand times as many welfare bums with their taxes as you do with yours, DON'T have the same right that you do.
Does that really make any sense? Is it fair?
Personally, I think a man is entitled to welfare on the basis of NEED, not good conduct or bad conduct. I'm glad to pay my taxes so he gets his welfare, I hope someone ultimately straightens the guy out so he can lead a happy and productive life (like that's gonna happen) but at the end of the day: I am not his fucking judge. Thank God that I and the other taxpayers of Canada can give the guy what he needs so he doesn't have to starve to death in the streets. Someone else can save his fucking soul. Or try to.
-
tee do you believe in workfare?
-
Are steet Drugs still expensive?
-
. What the fuck did Jesus say?
I feel reasonably certain that it wasn't "Fuck." Jiminy Crickets, MT, if you're gonna quote the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty dontcha think you could avoid mixing the sacred with the profane? :D
.
But somehow you think YOU have the right to dictate lifestyle choices to the bums who live off the proceeds of your taxes, but the hard-partying entertainers who probably support a thousand times as many welfare bums with their taxes as you do with yours, DON'T have the same right that you do.
Michael, while I can agree that Hollywoodsters have as much right to whine about how their taxes are spent as I do, I think you are reading a bit too much into CU4s comments. As for whether anyone has the right to complain about the actions of someone who's spending our hard-earned money, I disagree with you. I think when you have the responsibility to support someone - especially someone whose bad habits are the cause of that responsibility - you have the right to expect that person to at least try to improve their behavior. Simply put, the sooner the Welfare Bum stops doing the bad things that cost me bucks, the sooner I get to keep my bucks. I think it is reasonable to presume that when someone takes my money against my will, it is a willful surrender of freedom on their part. If I must support you, I ought to be able to have some say in getting you self-sufficient again. My right to interfere in your life comes from the effect those affairs are having on me. I have a right to get upset about someone who takes my money and intends to continue doing so. Alfred P. Doolittle is an endearing character, but only on stage.
Your point about not picking and choosing vices to complain about is also valid, but I would point out that drug use has two differences over many other vices. First, drug use is not only financially debilitating but also physically and emotionally as well. The physical effects of substance abuse exacerbate the tendency to "screw up" and decrease the likelihood (slim though it may be) of the abuser progressing towards responsible behavior. Secondly, unlike such vices as gambling, compulsive shopping or sheer laziness, we can actually detect drug abuse. It's rational, since it's possible, to try to monitor and discourage self-destructive behaviors. Granted, that is a bit of a double standard, but I think it is a practical one.
-
"...Your point about not picking and choosing vices to complain about is also valid, but I would point out that drug use has two differences over many other vices. First, drug use is not only financially debilitating but also physically and emotionally as well. The physical effects of substance abuse exacerbate the tendency to "screw up" and decrease the likelihood (slim though it may be) of the abuser progressing towards responsible behavior. Secondly, unlike such vices as gambling, compulsive shopping or sheer laziness, we can actually detect drug abuse. It's rational, since it's possible, to try to monitor and discourage self-destructive behaviors. Granted, that is a bit of a double standard, but I think it is a practical one."
Ok but there is an alternative to think about. Lab rats will press a lever many many times (work) to get a shot of cocane.
Addicts could be getting a lot of work done if the work was paying off in dope.
The government could get Cocane at very low prices compared to the street so whereever they were building a fence or digging a trench the government could get the work done at bargan rates ..... and pretty fast.
-
Do I believe in workfare? In theory, sure. In the Soviet Union, if a guy didn't earn his keep at some kind of productive labour, even make-work, like sweeping the streets, this was "parasitism" and he'd wind up in a labour camp where he God-damn well HAD to perform some kind of labour or suffer consequences you don't even want to think about if he didn't.
I think, like any bureaucratically-administered program, workfare is subject to abuse. But since this particular bureaucratically-administered program is dealing primarily with society's most vulnerable and defenceless members, it's particularly subject to abuse. There's some danger of it's being used punitively or maliciously by mean, petty bureaucrats drunk on their own power over the powerless. But even if applied properly, IMHO, it's basically a very impractical program.
I have known quite a few welfare recipients. I can tell you in all honesty, I can't recall even one of them who I'd be happy to have on my payroll. It isn't their fault, it's just the way they are. It is not really a practical idea to put them into the workforce against their will. The only people that really like it are the people it's really designed for - - the ideologues who believe it's immoral for someone to take money without earning it. The ones with no sense of charity in their bones. But like most right-wing ideologues, these people are extremely impractical, with very limited understanding of the real world.
-
<<I think when you have the responsibility to support someone - especially someone whose bad habits are the cause of that responsibility - you have the right to expect that person to at least try to improve their behavior. Simply put, the sooner the Welfare Bum stops doing the bad things that cost me bucks, the sooner I get to keep my bucks. >>
True enough. But only true in the sense that "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" is true. You gotta deal with the world as it is, Pooch, not as you'd like it to be.
<<I think it is reasonable to presume that when someone takes my money against my will, it is a willful surrender of freedom on their part. >>
Pooch, you oughtta spend more time among the low-lifes. In the real world. Hang out in a government welfare office for an hour once a week. Take a number. These guys are coming in to pick up a cheque. THEIR cheque. That the government OWES them. They aren't thinking in Hobbesian terms of freedom and its surrender. If you told them, they must live their lives as YOU dictate in order for them to continue to receive this miserable pittance, they'd probably choose to get what they need by other means that are even less socially productive than welfare.
<< If I must support you, I ought to be able to have some say in getting you self-sufficient again. My right to interfere in your life comes from the effect those affairs are having on me. I have a right to get upset about someone who takes my money and intends to continue doing so. >>
You are reminding me of the old admonition about not trying to teach a pig to sing. It'll never happen, and you will annoy the pig. These guys are what they are, Pooch. It's almost never their fault, they're the bottom three or four percent of the population, and every population is always gonna have a bottom three or four per cent. By definition. They're just the members of the human family who happen to have had the worst luck and the least advantages in life in the whole damn family. The system DOES provide retraining, DOES provide counselling, DOES provide drug rehab - - these are the ones who are so fucked up that they can't or won't benefit from what help the system provides. The MOST vulnerable, the MOST incapacitated, the MOST incapable of changing for the better. The bottom ten percent of the bottom three per cent. But still members of your family. What are you going to do, turn your back on 'em?
<<Alfred P. Doolittle is an endearing character, but only on stage.>>
OK, great, NOW we're getting somewhere. Think of Alfred P. Why do you like him? What is so endearing about him? And try to transfer those feelings into the real world. To real people. Shouldn't be all that hard. The basic emotional component is already there.
<<Your point about not picking and choosing vices to complain about is also valid, but I would point out that drug use has two differences over many other vices. First, drug use is not only financially debilitating but also physically and emotionally as well. The physical effects of substance abuse exacerbate the tendency to "screw up" and decrease the likelihood (slim though it may be) of the abuser progressing towards responsible behavior. >>
Well, you realize the problem yourself. That "slim though it may be" is really an acknowledgment that the drug abuse is really just a symptom, that the real problem lies beneath that. WHY is the guy abusing drugs? And from welfare's POV, what's the difference? The guy's disabled by whatever problem leads to the drug abuse, someone else is disabled by the gambling bug, someone else by borderline mental illness, etc., etc. Welfare is not their therapy. Welfare is just their support mechanism, to support them with the necessities of life. They all get that basic support. Hopefully, the welfare offices can steer them to whatever curative agencies are available to treat the drug addiction and its cause, to treat the unskilled by upgrading his skills, to treat the gambler, the psychotic, etc. But welfare is to keep them alive UNTIL.
<<Secondly, unlike such vices as gambling, compulsive shopping or sheer laziness, we can actually detect drug abuse. It's rational, since it's possible, to try to monitor and discourage self-destructive behaviors. Granted, that is a bit of a double standard, but I think it is a practical one.>>
Again back in the real world you can detect most of the other problems too. Most of these guys will freely admit to them. They have no pride and they don't give a shit. In other cases, you just have to ask their wives, girlfriends, children or mothers. The problems of the welfare recipient are not closely-guarded military secrets. A lot of the time you can't get them to shut up about them. And you're right, it is a bit of a double standard. Charity is charity, it's based on need, not virtue.
-
"........every population is always gonna have a bottom three or four per cent..."
What do you do to maximise the potential of these people?
Conrawise what do you do to prevent the bttom three percent from becomeing the bottom six percent?
If welfare actually makes getting by into good living a few more percent will fall into it.
At the least their recreationsl drugs should not be our responsiblity to buy.
-
<<What do you do to maximise the potential of these people?>>
Re-training, free public health care, free drug-abuse counseling, free needle exchanges, counselling, adult education. We ARE providing that. Our former Conservative government cut a lot of the programs, but our new Liberal government (which just got re-elected two weeks ago in a landslide) is restoring them.
<<Conrawise what do you do to prevent the bttom three percent from becomeing the bottom six percent?>>
Free public health care, more emphasis on mental-health programs and sex education in the schools, anti-racism campaigns, drug programmes, better housing, basically a whole lotta social welfare programs, everything that conservatives hate.
<<If welfare actually makes getting by into good living a few more percent will fall into it.>>
Why don't you try living for a month on what one of our welfare recipients here gets, and then tell me what kind of "good living" it is?
<<At the least their recreationsl drugs should not be our responsiblity to buy.>>
Since it's inevitable that they're gonna spend some of their welfare money on dope, I think it's only practical that you ensure them a good supply of cheap legal dope so that they have more of your taxpayer money to spend on more wholesome and constructive purposes. Hopefully with publicly funded drug-abuse programs and mental health initiatives, whatever is driving them to abuse drugs in the first place can be treated, cured or at least cut back. Unless of course you have no problem with watching them blow your money on over-priced dope and have to come back to get more for food.
-
<<At the least their recreationsl drugs should not be our responsiblity to buy.>>
Since it's inevitable that they're gonna spend some of their welfare money on dope, I think it's only practical that you ensure them a good supply of cheap legal dope so that they have more of your taxpayer money to spend on more wholesome and constructive purposes. Hopefully with publicly funded drug-abuse programs and mental health initiatives, whatever is driving them to abuse drugs in the first place can be treated, cured or at least cut back. Unless of course you have no problem with watching them blow your money on over-priced dope and have to come back to get more for food.
This brings us back to my suggestion that the Governent should have a legion of Zombies to carry out its tasks for the sake of their dope ration.
-
<<This brings us back to my suggestion that the Governent should have a legion of Zombies to carry out its tasks for the sake of their dope ration.>>
That's OK with me, plane, as long as they work on YOUR property and not on mine.
-
. What the fuck did Jesus say?
I feel reasonably certain that it wasn't "Fuck." Jiminy Crickets, MT, if you're gonna quote the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty dontcha think you could avoid mixing the sacred with the profane? :D
Just a minor point here, in terms of rectifying your diction by correcting the error you insert.
When you say . . . "the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty (sic)" you infer that Jesus is such the case. The word "Gawd" suggests God, which opens the problem. Jesus was a man, who did not create the rivers and the trees, the lakes and the seas--that creator was God.
In most of the world's eye, the difference is clear. There is Jesus, and there is God.
If I am to now interpret them interchangeable, I did not get the memo. WHO would have sent such an unauthorized memo?
When you say ""the""-Lord-Gawd . . ." you suggest a universal, automatic acceptance.
What you should have said, then, for the sake of objectivity, was "my" or "a Christian's" --anything that could distinguish the singular speaker and his personal religious bias, but certainly not established metaphysical truth.
On the furthur matter of not using the word "fuck" in the same sentence with God, I find that repressive, regressive, controlling, and of course, politically incorrect.
Politically incorrect since there is no law of either the legal establishment or the laws of grammar to justify the nannying.
"Politically incorrect" seems to refer to all those areas where we suddenly find blurred lines in our culture, ruptured lines.
The various things which can be referred to as such are occuring with increasing frequency.
I urge all to consider that "Politically Incorrect" might just refer to the areas wherein the Right Wing, who have admitted and even stressed this never-quite-spelled-out cultural revolution they so relentlessly wage, have made at least some small success in blurring the extant cultural lines.
Things we used to know only a few years ago we now find we have to reask before we speak; we are not sure, so we defer to the common, and looking up and down the street, will probably first find a Right Wing TV show, a Right Wing Radio show (95% current talk radio--Right Wing, most hard Right Wing), an elected politican bluing us like Big Brother about daily new lists of inappropriate behavior, or one of the new, physically flawless celebrities,, light and superficial, telling us OhWhatTheHell!!!! when it comes to eschewing health over a glitzy ball of pure processed sugar.
"politically incorrect" seems to refer soimehow to those areas they deem salient targets for altering culture, where they seek to make change, blur the lines, move the goal posts.
I urge all to refrain from automatic subscription, especially where there is heavy rain of 'hurt feelings' persuasion.
_________________________________________________________________________
"Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty." --Mahatma Gandhi
-
Just a minor point here, in terms of rectifying your diction by correcting the error you insert.
When you say . . . "the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty (sic)" you infer that Jesus is such the case. The word "Gawd" suggests God, which opens the problem. Jesus was a man, who did not create the rivers and the trees, the lakes and the seas--that creator was God.
In most of the world's eye, the difference is clear. There is Jesus, and there is God.
If I am to now interpret them interchangeable, I did not get the memo. WHO would have sent such an unauthorized memo?
The memo to which you refer is called the New Testament. Leaving aside the fact that my statement was made in an obviously humorous manner and as such really required no debate, your arguments against it are hardly valid.
In the first place, you opine that Jesus was only a man - not a god. I disagree with that opinion, as do most Christians. While unlike most mainstream Christians I view Christ as a separate personage in the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), I nonetheless view him as both man and God. The vast majority of Christians view Christ as one aspect of the trinity God which is actually not that far from what I believe, though many would consign me to hell for the difference in perspective. As to taking pains to establish that the view of Christ as God is only my own belief, it is completely unnecessary. That point is implicit in any conversation about religion. I have no more need to clarify that point than you have to state that Jesus is not God "in my opinion." I do not believe that your stating that opinion without qualification implies a universal acceptance (which clearly does not exist) but rather an adamant stance on that POV. As a matter of fact, within the context of western culture the terms Jesus and God can be used interchangeably - though some would not agree with the comparison. But if I were truly discussing religious doctrines I would certainly NOT use a flippant term such as "Lord-Gawd-A-Mighty." While I will sometimes tapdance along the line of appropriate religious humor (and some might well argue step across it) terms like that one would suggest to most people that the point is tongue-in-cheek. Barring that, the smiley should be a clearer clue.
But let us assume for a moment that I was, in fact, dead serious as to my objection about the foul language juxtaposed with the mention of Deity. As to being repressive, regressive, controlling, and (Oh My Lord-Gawd-A-Mighty) Poliltically Incorrect, I believe that I would be no more guilty of the first three offenses than you are by objecting to my calling Jesus God. I would, in fact, call that observation on your part rather hypocritical. As to the last, I revel in the opportunity to be called Politically Incorrect. When one is honored with the PI label it usually means he is stating a truth that conflicts with a carefully manufactured world view. It is beneficial to freedom and society at large to challenge a faction whose beliefs are so fragile they cannot withstand even the gentle breeze of linguistic clarity, much less weather the whirlwind of direct debate. There are some aspects of the so-called Politically Correct that have merit. (It is, for example, perfectly valid to object to racial slurs or fight against stereotyping.) But as a general rule it is always more healthy to allow even socially objectional viewpoints a full airing than to (note this next word carefully) repress an opposing opinion. One of my favorite Broadway quotes is from the musical "1776." Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island states "Well, sir. I never seen, heard nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous ya can't even TALK about it!" So if my objection to using an extreme profanity in the same sentence as the name of God is Politically Incorrect, let the Kangaroo Kourt convene. I find that objection as humorous as I did the original quote. I note that MT did not feel a need to respond to that point. I think he got the humor.
-
True enough. But only true in the sense that "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" is true. You gotta deal with the world as it is, Pooch, not as you'd like it to be.
I agree with your point but not from your perspective. The entire concept of liberal social programs is, as you imply, to attempt to force those who believe in allowing people to be reponsible for themselves to take responsibility for others. The premise upon which this mindset is based is that people cannot take care of themselves, so someone has to do it for them. In fact, in most of nature and most of human history, those who cannot take care of themselves are weeded out by natural selection and those who have needs that are not being met learn to meet them by themselves or die. THAT is "the world as it is." It is, of course, well within the means of a socially advanced species to give aid and comfort to those in need. But the impulse to do so immediately contradicts the bleak concept of kismet suggested by appeals to "the world as it is." So we come, paradoxically to an agreement in principle that the world should NOT be accepted as it is, but rather that improvements within our power ought to be implemented. You believe that people in poor circumstances CAN'T change. I believe they can. So you view as charitable consigning these people to an inescapable caste of unfortunates who we must, in our superior condition, deign to provide for. That sense of noblesse oblige is charitable in a bread-and-butter sense, but is far from charitable - indeed is downright offensive - on the level of human interaction. It is bigotry in denial. I, OTOH, believe that the surest sign of respect for another person is allowing them to fail. It is through failure that people learn to succeed. Those who are consigned to the welfare roles are denied the opportunity to grow. That is, I confess, less charitable in the immediate sense of the term, and far less popular with the poor. But it is kinder in the long run, and shows a much higher opinion of the "low lifes." Speaking of which . . .
Pooch, you oughtta spend more time among the low-lifes. In the real world. Hang out in a government welfare office for an hour once a week. Take a number. These guys are coming in to pick up a cheque. THEIR cheque. That the government OWES them. They aren't thinking in Hobbesian terms of freedom and its surrender. If you told them, they must live their lives as YOU dictate in order for them to continue to receive this miserable pittance, they'd probably choose to get what they need by other means that are even less socially productive than welfare.
You make several assumptions about my experience that are not valid. I grew up in a family that spent much time on welfare, and in my early childhood even resorted to begging. My father seldom kept a job for more than a few months and I found out later in life even forced my mother into prostitution at times. There were times when my mother shoplifted food, and she nearly went to jail for it once. But then she decided that she needed to get her act together ('cuz Dad wasn't going to) and started work as a waitress in a Beer Garden. She moved up to cleaning hotel rooms, then became a front desk clerk, and ultimately got a job in the Maryland court system. When she retired (and, sadly, that was literally on the day she died) she had risen to a clerk of court. My Dad, who she dumped after we were grown, gradually learned that he had to work to eat and belatedly got working steadily.
Even though I have been employed non-stop since 1974, I have had a few occasions where I have needed extra help, but I have only resorted to food stamps for a total of six months in my adult life, and I qualified for many years. I never believed that the food stamps were something the government OWED me. I felt terribly embarrassed to sink to the point of accepting government assistance. I did it because my kids would have gone hungry otherwise, and the long hours of military shift duty made it hard to work a second job.
You talk about the "real world." I find it interesting how people tend to think the "real world" is the one which corresponds with their own world view. The fact is, I grew up poor and learned that anything I got I would have to work for if I wanted to have any self-respect. So I started working as a teen so I could buy halfway decent clothes to stop the teasing I got in school when I wore the same pants for days in a row or had shoes that were falling off of my feet. I went to a community college because I could barely afford the bus fair to get there and a "real" school was well beyond my means. I finally decided to join the Army and give up my dream of a music education career because I wanted a secure job to raise a family. We weren't knocking them dead for most of the time. If my kids wanted something bad enough they got jobs and worked for it. When there wasn't enough money they did without it, and they learned about "the real world." I sometimes get nostalgic over what might have been, but I'm pretty content with how things turned out. The military was a tough life, but I can look back with some pride on it. My children are doing better than I did, and mostly because they have developed the work ethic that comes from understanding that you only get what you work for.
Contrast that with my sister-in-law. She decided that welfare was the way, in fact she became an expert at how to cheat the system (which she did with glee). She got angry at us when we wouldn't claim more children than we actually had on our tax forms to qualify for more food stamps and other government benefits. We were stupid, she told us. Then the IRS started requiring SSNs for children and she suddenly lost three kids. She had to leave Maryland because the DSS wanted to know where those extra three kids had gone. (Fortunately, they didn't pursue her out of state. They had far too many cases to investigate of exactly the same thing, just like all of the other states did.) In the end she was wanted in three different states for welfare fraud. None of her five children finished High School (one lived only two weeks, so he at least had an excuse). They were taken from her on several occasions and never knew where they might be from week to week. All of her children joined the welfare train when they "grew up." But then welfare reform happened. Suddenly they all got jobs, and LO AND BEHOLD they even developed some self-respect. One got a GED, a decent job and even eventually bought himself a house. The oldest girl is in her thirties now and actually turned into a pretty decent mother once she realized that it was that or lose her kids.
That's what the "real world" is.
Think of Alfred P. Why do you like him? What is so endearing about him? And try to transfer those feelings into the real world. To real people.
But that is the point. Doolittle is a FICTIONAL character. What is endearing about him is that he ISN'T real. The real Alfred - if he existed - wouldn't be a lovable ne'er-do-well. He would be a lazy, philandering bum who was willing to prostitute his daughter and would be far more likely to rob Professor Higgins at knifepoint than to carry on a witty conversation with him. Lerner and Lowe gave him clever lines, a couple of cute song-and-dance routines and a winning disposition. In the "real world" Alfred wouldn't have any of those desirable properties.
WHY is the guy abusing drugs? And from welfare's POV, what's the difference? The guy's disabled by whatever problem leads to the drug abuse, someone else is disabled by the gambling bug, someone else by borderline mental illness, etc., etc. Welfare is not their therapy. Welfare is just their support mechanism, to support them with the necessities of life. They all get that basic support. Hopefully, the welfare offices can steer them to whatever curative agencies are available to treat the drug addiction and its cause, to treat the unskilled by upgrading his skills, to treat the gambler, the psychotic, etc. But welfare is to keep them alive UNTIL.
That argument rings hollow, in light of your assertion that UNTIL will never come. I agree that treatment for those in need IS necessary. But UNTIL will, I think, never come UNLESS some accountability is applied to those in such situations. Continuing to give welfare without accountability is a fool's game. I remember when my sis-in-law decided to get a waitress job to make a little extra money. The welfare office promptly reduced her benefits to offset the money she made. She quit her job, because as she saw it she could make the same amount of money either way, so why work? She was indignant that the idiots in the government couldn't see that they were FORCING her to take more welfare by "penalizing" her for working. If it were up to me, a person wo deliberately quit a job to get more benefits wouldn't get any more than they were already getting. If that happened, people would work for a living instead of relying on the government. Once the check stopped coming in, even sis-in-law got a job. But of course she is now in her fifties and can barely hold down a job because of health problems and a lack of work ethic. What great act of charity did we do by allowing her to waste all of her potential in life by subsidizing her self-destruction?
Again back in the real world you can detect most of the other problems too.
Not if it is in their interest to hide them. We can easily detect drug use. If a man gambled away his rent last night, we have know way of testing for that. Of course the expense of random drug testing for a large roll of welfare recipients may defeat the fiscal purpose of the testing. But the cost may be offset by the added productivity and decrease in welfare rolls such testing might bring (one way or another).
They have no pride and they don't give a shit.
But that can change. Self-respect can be a learned skill. Indeed, I think it HAS to be learned - as well as earned.
Charity is charity, it's based on need, not virtue.
But whether it is more charitable to teach responsibility through that "best teacher" of experience or to teach reliance on government largesse is an open question. IMO the former is better, more charitable, and more respectful of the person involved. I completely agree that virtue ought not be a consideration in granting charity. But I believe TEACHING virtues through accountability is an essential part of charity. In fact I think that simply throwing money at the "less fortunate" will cruelly perpetuate their misfortune. That isn't charity at all. It's abuse.
We disagree because we have a different set of experiences. The "real world" is no more what you think it is than what I think it is. It is a combination of experiences and viewpoints. While I view your ideals as potentially counterproductive to truly charitiable behavior, I don't question your motives. It might be well for you to consider that those of us who choose to view charity from the perspective I have described are no less charitable in spirit than you.
-
I view Christ as a separate personage in the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), I nonetheless view him as both man and God. The vast majority of Christians view Christ as one aspect of the trinity God which is actually not that far from what I believe, though many would consign me to hell for the difference in perspective. As to taking pains to establish that the view of Christ as God is only my own belief, it is completely unnecessary. That point is implicit in any conversation about religion. I have no more need to clarify that point than you have to state that Jesus is not God "in my opinion."
As I see it, Jesus is currently a member of the Holy Trinity. The theologians of the Holy Mother Church tell us that all three members of this Divine Group have always existed forever, but until somewhere around 6 BC (officially 1 AD) neither Jesus nor the Holy Ghost seem to have had much to do.
Then Jesus took a leave of absence and was born a cute little baby, which attracted another three astrologers known as the Magi, or We Three Kings of Orient Are to provide assurance that he was, in fact, holy. Their names according to tradition were Gaspar, Melchior and Balthazar but they didn't have any of the Holy Scribes write their names down. They came, it is said, from the East, but we now see them as a black guy, a white guy and a not entirely white guy, since they represent the three continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. They came on camels, which are rarely used for transport in Europe. Perhaps the European Magus rented his camel. They were really important dudes, these Magi, but back wherever they came from, the folks there kept really shoddy records, and we have no record of them doing anything of importance.
Jesus was a officially member of the Trinity for his entire stay on the planet, but his biographers, in addition to being really derelict with the dates, recorded very little of his doings until around the last year or so of his life. It was then that he gathered a posse and roamed around Palestine. Eventually he pissed off the Pharisees and they got the Romans to do him in. He came back for a short spell, then another short spell, and left, promising to return before the last of his posse had died, and the folks at the church around the corner are always reminding me that at any moment he will pop back in for a longer stay.
It looks to me like Jesus was a man, but for only a rather short term, and now he has returned to his divine status, and we can only call him an Ex-Man. As a member of a Divine and omnipotent, omniscient Trinity, we can assume that he cam take human form, or any other form at any time. It's just that recently he hasn't felt the urge, apparently.
The Holy Spirit is the real original stealth leader of the Trinity, since he never gives interviews and stays in undisclosed locations pretty much all the time. IT's not nice to refer to him as "The Spook". Strangely, out of the three members of the Trinity, not one is a woman. This is considered strage, however, by very few people. It's like the planet being simultaneously considered as a creration for human beings, a distinctly land critter, yet the planet of covered mostly by water, and undrinkable water at that.
These are known as mysteries, and we would be better off not thinking of them.
It seems like everyone is waiting for stuff to happen and guys to return. The Christians are waiting for Jesus, in his role as the Messiah, to return. The Jews are waiting for a true Messiah, since Jesus didn't seem to have impressed all of them all that much, and the Shiites are waiting for a Thirteenth Imam.
Jesus has so far not taken a stand on urine tests. I am not in favor of them, and hope Jesus e3ventually reject them as well, but I am not holding my breath.
-
Jesus has so far not taken a stand on urine tests.
Untrue, oh ye of little faith. The Lord does indeed mention urine tests in the following references:
1 Samuel 25:22 and 25:343
1 Kings 14:10 and 21:21
2 Kings 9:8
This was, apparently, a really bad urine test to fail. . . :D
-
Jesus has so far not taken a stand on urine tests.
Untrue, oh ye of little faith. The Lord does indeed mention urine tests in the following references:
1 Samuel 25:22 and 25:343
1 Kings 14:10 and 21:21
2 Kings 9:8
Sorry, I slept through that part in Vacation Bible School...
Is Jesus in agreement, that is the question.
I never agreed 100% with my father, after all.
-
Is Jesus in agreement, that is the question.
I never agreed 100% with my father, after all.
[/quote]
Yeah, but your Dad could only make life hell until your were 18! :-D
-
the reference to he "who pisseth against the wall" refers to a man as opposed to a woman. Women are not constructed so as to pisseth against walls.
This is not actually any sort of urine test. A urination test, perhaps.
-
Ah, Pooch, my apologies, for neglecting to welcome you back when I first responded to you in this thread. It was indeed good to see you back on this board. I can't imagine how I had come to neglect the obvious, but maybe it has something to do with the ravages of time. Now let me tell you (surprise, surprise!) that I cannot agree with you.
<<In fact, in most of nature and most of human history, those who cannot take care of themselves are weeded out by natural selection and those who have needs that are not being met learn to meet them by themselves or die. THAT is "the world as it is." >>
That is just ridiculous, Pooch. The world hasn't been like that for thousands of years. There's no evidence that it was even like that in pre-historic times. Even robins won't abandon a chick that falls out of its nest. According to your theory, if the dumb fuck can't stay in its own nest, it should be left to fate or mother nature to do what evolution dictates be done. You are taking some construct based on a fantasy of pre-historic social life that even had it existed would have existed thousands of years ago, and trying to pass this off as "the world as it is." Sorry. No sale.
<<It is, of course, well within the means of a socially advanced species to give aid and comfort to those in need. But the impulse to do so immediately contradicts the bleak concept of kismet suggested by appeals to "the world as it is." >>
Wrong again. The "world as it is" is a world where almost nobody thinks that the damaged and the incompetent should be left to die on the streets AND it is also a world where for various reasons some people are so damaged and fucked up that they will never be contributing functional members of their society. Kudos to you and anyone else who climbed out of the pit, but that does not negate the fact that there are millions of others who never can and never will.
<<You believe that people in poor circumstances CAN'T change. I believe they can. >>
That is not true. I believe that some can and some can't.
<<So you view as charitable consigning these people to an inescapable caste of unfortunates who we must, in our superior condition, deign to provide for. That sense of noblesse oblige is charitable in a bread-and-butter sense, but is far from charitable - indeed is downright offensive - on the level of human interaction. >>
It's only offensive if you believe that one human being is worth more than another depending on their relative degrees of self-sufficiency. I think that if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and another guy is a conniving, cheating lying Republican millionaire, the helpless fuck-up is still a human being, deserving of love and understanding. I'm still trying to make up my mind about the Republican. On a more serious note, if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and the other isn't, they are both human beings and they are both, as such, and for no other reason, worthy and deserving of our love and understanding. Difficult as it may be to keep that in mind at all times.
IMHO it is highly unrealistic for you to view all of the fuck-ups as ultimately capable of rehabilitation or even conversion to some "higher" state of humanity. There is only one state of humanity and all of us have already made it there, with one or two truly egregious exceptions. I think it's highly unrealistic in the present real world, because we lack the number of therapists required and our therapists lack the necessary skills and training. But even in an ideal world with no practical limit on the number of therapists and where all of the therapists are Ph. D.s in their fields with a minimum of 20 years of practical experience, I believe that there would still remain a goodly number of untreatable, uncureable fuck-ups. For want of a better word.
<<You make several assumptions about my experience that are not valid.>>
My apologies. I really was speaking rhetorically, the meaning being that I had a lot of real-life experience with welfare recipients and the welfare system and I didn't believe (from your arguments) that you did. I still think it is quite possible that your knowledge of the system may be limited to one particular system and how it interacted with you and the members of your immediate family, whereas mine covers a much broader range of welfare recipients with various kinds of disabilities and entitlements (including various scam artists with no disabilities or entitlements) and several different kinds of welfare systems and jurisdictions. And the reason I say this is because I am just floored by your idea that all of these unfortunate people can be straightened out. Not in this lifetime. Not on this planet.
I got the feeling, reading of your experiences with the system (and BTW, thanks for sharing them!) that you were one of the lucky ones. I am certainly not trying to claim that all of them, or even that a majority of them, are beyond redemption. But some will climb or claw their way out of it and some will not. I found that some of the people least sympathetic to the plight of welfare recipients are former welfare recipients who made good: "I fought my way out, now why can't they?" To state the question is to recognize the illogic of the position. "I scored 100% on the math exam, now why can't he?"
<<Doolittle is a FICTIONAL character. What is endearing about him is that he ISN'T real. The real Alfred - if he existed - wouldn't be a lovable ne'er-do-well. He would be a lazy, philandering bum . . . >>
Avoiding the question because Doolittle's a fictional character is a cop-out. There are fictional characters (Bill Sykes in Dickens' Oliver Twist) who despite being fictional, are totally UNENDEARING. My question was, what was there about the fictional character of Doolittle that you liked? I submit it was his freedom, expressed in various forms - - freedom from conventional bourgeois morality, freedom from fear of the law, freedom from fear of what others might think. Freedom from materialism From wage-slavery. Etc. Because he's a fictional character, Doolittle does not have to pay the price of his freedom. But in real life that kind of freedom comes with a price tag. Poverty, deprivation, criminality, etc. And of course these are the people you find on the real-life welfare lines. My only point was, you might be able better to appreciate the more endearing human side of these folks if you merely reminded yourself of what it was you admired (or at least responded to) in Doolittle's fictional character.
<<What great act of charity did we do by allowing her to waste all of her potential in life by subsidizing her self-destruction?>>
You raised a valid point, but there's a valid answer to it. The welfare system's fundamental purpose is NOT to rehabilitate but to support. There are other arms of the government which try to rehabilitate. Ideally, welfare supports those who either temporarily or permanently cannot support themselves. The welfare system is underfunded. Always has been, always will be. It does not have to funds to provide adequate support for everyone, so it cannot afford to squander its inadequate resources on activities not within its mandate. (such as rehabilitation) - - In an ideal world, the welfare support system could be individualized. Each recipient would be minutely scrutinized - - "This one needs support to tide her over till her next job, but this one is in serious danger of having her work ethic undermined if we provide support without attaching character-building conditions to it and supervising them." You are asking for a level of personalization and therapy that the welfare system is not designed to deliver and is not capable of delivering.
True, your sister-in-law fell between the cracks. She and thousands of others are the casualties of an imperfect welfare system that delivers help on a "shotgun" style delivery system. The blunt answer is: it's the best the welfare system can afford to do. If you want personalized welfare programs tailored to the interests of every recipient, the costs of the system would skyrocket through the roof. Whatever wastage you see now would be dwarfed by the sums spent on devising new protocols, attaching, monitoring, supervising and administering the tailor-made programs, punishing by cut-offs, establishing appeal mechanisms and tribunals to deal with the cut-offs, etc.
<<We can easily detect drug use. If a man gambled away his rent last night, we have know way of testing for that.>>
This was in the context of my question, "Why cut off the man disabled from drug habit but not the man disabled by gambling habit?"
Again, you seem to ignore my contention that a lot of these guys are an open book. If they won't admit they gambled away the rent, their wife or girlfriend will spill the beans, or their kids will. The other problem is that even if you can detect the drug use, there is no way to correlate the drug use with the lack of funds - - the guy could smoke a joint or do some hash or opium and still be capable of managing his money. And yet another problem is, even a drug-abusing, coke-fried-shit-for-brains junkie needs food in his belly and a roof over his head.
<<But that [their lack of pride and self-respect] can change. Self-respect can be a learned skill. Indeed, I think it HAS to be learned - as well as earned.>>
Awww, you missed my point completely. I wasn't lamenting their lack of pride and self-respect. The remark was made in the context of our discussion, why not cut the guy off for gambling? in response to your point that while drug use can easily be detected by a drug test, there is no comparably simple way to detect past gambling. To which I replied that a lot of these guys will TELL you why they fucked up, simply because they have no pride or self-respect. Whether or not that can be fixed is irrelevant to the point I was making - - at this point in time, while the guy is on welfare, he had no pride or self-respect and therefore many of them in fact WILL tell you why they fucked up. Admittedly, some will cop to it easier than others, which is where interviewing skills can make up some of the difference.
<<But whether it is more charitable to teach responsibility through that "best teacher" of experience or to teach reliance on government largesse is an open question. IMO the former is better, more charitable, and more respectful of the person involved. I completely agree that virtue ought not be a consideration in granting charity. But I believe TEACHING virtues through accountability is an essential part of charity. In fact I think that simply throwing money at the "less fortunate" will cruelly perpetuate their misfortune. That isn't charity at all. It's abuse.>>
Well, you made some good points. But you have to consider the limitations of the system. Also that not every method of teaching works equally well on all pupils. It's cruel to foster an attitude of permanent entitlement in persons who might otherwise have earned self-respect and pride through being forced to go to work after being cut off benefits. It's (IMHO) just as cruel, if not more cruel, to force people to work at jobs which they either can't find or can't perform without damaging their mental health or self-respect permanently, in order to qualify for a welfare benefit which, in essence, is supposed to be charity. If the system could assess each potential recipient and make an accurate diagnosis of the problem and prescribe just the right combination of giving and firmness, that would be great, but you are talking about a welfare system that never was and never will be. You're talking about a welfare system that has a much broader mandate than any system that I know of.
<<We disagree because we have a different set of experiences. >>
No, we disagree because you drew the wrong conclusions from what you observed. To pick the simplest and most obvious example, from the fact that you could pull yourself out of welfare, you concluded that everyone else could as well. Or at least that most others could. That's just plain old-fashioned faulty reasoning.
<< The "real world" is no more what you think it is than what I think it is. >>
The real world is what it is. One of us has a more accurate picture of it than the other.
<< It is a combination of experiences and viewpoints. >>
It may well be a combination of experiences, but some viewpoints pick up the reality a lot better than others.
<<While I view your ideals as potentially counterproductive to truly charitiable behavior, I don't question your motives. It might be well for you to consider that those of us who choose to view charity from the perspective I have described are no less charitable in spirit than you. >>
Well, thanks for not questioning my motives, but I don't see how anyone could question the motives of someone willing to pay MORE taxes to support a bunch of strangers, including strangers on dope. I see where you're coming from, Pooch, and I don't question YOUR motives, but I think a lot of people who want drug tests for welfare recipients have a number of issues as follows:
1. dislike of welfare recipients and/or junkies
2. resentment at having to pay money to persons disabled, especially if disabled by a drug habit
3. stinginess, greed
4. racism
IMHO, it is those emotions that Republicans like Reagan appealed to with the "Welfare Queen" bogeyman and that is what motivates Republicans and conservative Democrats in their calls for drug testing. Very few, IMHO, are considering the welfare of the welfare recipients. Their needs for food and shelter are MUCH more immediate than the need for rehab, self-respect, etc. because if they die before rehab, there is no rehab.
-
How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?
You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.
-
<<How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?
<<You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.>>
True enough. Here's one for you:
How could you drive someone to suicide after he comes to you with a problem?
You might drive him to suicide by telling him he can fix his own fucking problem when he can't.
-
<<How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?
<<You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.>>
True enough. Here's one for you:
How could you drive someone to suicide after he comes to you with a problem?
You might drive him to suicide by telling him he can fix his own fucking problem when he can't.
Where are suicide rates high?
In wealthy areas or poor ones?
In countrys with welfare states or those without?
-
<<Where are suicide rates high?
<<In wealthy areas or poor ones?
<<In countrys with welfare states or those without?>>
I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I do know which profession has the highest suicide rate: dentistry. (may not be true any more but it was once)
Your attempt to correlate suicide rates with wealth and/or welfare statism is naive and moreover has been tried before. During the Eisenhower years, the Swedish model of economic development (which I believe had both socialist and capitalist elements) was much praised, because Sweden had achieved one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Eisenhower administration, eager to counter the impression that the Swedish way was the way to go, found a survey claiming that Sweden had one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of suicide in the world. This was used to discredit socialism in general.
Later, I believe, the survey was found to be either seriously flawed or a fake.
-
Your attempt to correlate suicide rates with wealth and/or welfare statism is naive and moreover has been tried before.
Pardon me?
This was your attempt to correlate suicide rates with wealth and/or welfare statism , which I considered naive and moreover I had seen it before.
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:54:43 PM
<<How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?
<<You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.>>
True enough. Here's one for you:
How could you drive someone to suicide after he comes to you with a problem?
You might drive him to suicide by telling him he can fix his own fucking problem when he can't.
-
<<This was your attempt to correlate suicide rates with wealth and/or welfare statism , which I considered naive and moreover I had seen it before.>>
That's ridiculous. I had made no statements at all regarding rates of suicide. That was entirely your contribution.
-
The suicide rates that appear officially are likely to be impossible to compare. To Catholics, most other Christians, Moslems and others, suicide is a moral lapse. This means that it is most likely reported as an accident (accidental overdose, traffic accident, accidentally leaving the gas on, etc). There is nopt much aspersion to suicide in Scandinavian countries, so a suicide is MUCH more likely reported as such. Quite often, suicides are the result of someone becoming aware that they have an incurable disease and a long, painful death facing them. In poorer countries, they would not be so likely to know this.
It is silly to say that the suicide rate is an index of how bpeople behave under different types of government. People commit suicide nearly always for personal, not political reasons.
-
That is just ridiculous, Pooch. The world hasn't been like that for thousands of years. There's no evidence that it was even like that in pre-historic times. Even robins won't abandon a chick that falls out of its nest. According to your theory, if the dumb fuck can't stay in its own nest, it should be left to fate or mother nature to do what evolution dictates be done. You are taking some construct based on a fantasy of pre-historic social life that even had it existed would have existed thousands of years ago, and trying to pass this off as "the world as it is." Sorry. No sale.
It's not ridiculous. Even today there are still cultures that allow the weak to die - and not necessarily with dignity. There is a gray area in some places now. Mothers will abort a child for sex selection instead of letting it be born and leaving it in the woods to die. But while one can debate whether that is killing the "weak" (in this case the weaker sex) the mindset is still the same. But I am not saying "if the dumbfuck, etc." I am just suggesting that, in spite of natural tendencies towards protection of the herd, the weak are weeded out - and often left to die intentionally. If you disagree just ask Darwin. Again, I am not saying that is the way it SHOULD be, but rather that is the way it is. You appealed to the "real world." I am simply stating that the real world is not as you choose to define it.
Wrong again. The "world as it is" is a world where almost nobody thinks that the damaged and the incompetent should be left to die on the streets.
That statement is based on a false premise. I never suggested or implied that people should be allowed to die on the streets. I simply suggest that most people believe that other people should be held accountable for their actions instead of blindly supported by the government and thereby allowed to fail. Your assumption seems to be that welfare cases "can't change" and should therefore be allowed to simply become wards of the state. That is not only a paternalistic viewpoint, it is the same sort of logic that led to eugenics. That is not to say, of course, that I am suggesting that you would approve of such a thing. But the idea that there is no hope for the "feeble minded" appealed to no less formidable a jurist than Oliver Wendell Holmes who upheld a Virginia law prescribing sterilization of undesirables with the famous pronouncement "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 - 1927). He wasn't talking, as most presume, about mentally retarded persons. He was talking about "low lifes" who are on welfare roles and in prisons. What is appalling to us now was upheld by science and the Supreme Court even in the twentieth century. Both of us would agree that eugenics was a terrible idea (at least I think it is safe to say so) but I would suggest that your mindset towards the "low lifes" is - if more charitable in effect - no less paternalistic in principle. I disagree with both you and Justice Holmes that they cannot change. There are only a very few whose physical or mental handicaps are so great that they require perpetual assistance. But most people on the dole are there because they can be - not because they need to be.
AND it is also a world where for various reasons some people are so damaged and fucked up that they will never be contributing functional members of their society. Kudos to you and anyone else who climbed out of the pit, but that does not negate the fact that there are millions of others who never can and never will.
I think it DOES negate that assumption (not fact). Indeed, if I were only one example you might call me heroic. But in fact I have done far less than others who grew up in far worse circumstances. Allowing the "llow lifes" to compete - indeed requiring them to - is the only way to actually encourage them to move forward.
It's only offensive if you believe that one human being is worth more than another depending on their relative degrees of self-sufficiency. I think that if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and another guy is a conniving, cheating lying Republican millionaire, the helpless fuck-up is still a human being, deserving of love and understanding. I'm still trying to make up my mind about the Republican. On a more serious note, if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and the other isn't, they are both human beings and they are both, as such, and for no other reason, worthy and deserving of our love and understanding. Difficult as it may be to keep that in mind at all times.
But that is exactly my point. I do not judge people soley by their achievements. I judge them, when I judge them, by what they are trying to achieve. I have more respect for someone who works hard and barely pays his bills than I do for someone who inherits Daddy's business and drives a Lexus. But I have far more respect for either of them than I do for those who sit on their asses and wait for a welfare check each month. The only caveat I put on it is that many of those do so because they have no rational motivation to do otherwise. There is a difference between love and respect. There is also a difference between compassion and paternalism. In the same way that I had my children immunized even though they thought it was cruel at the time, I think we have to innoculate people from falling into the trap of dependence. That does not mean I am completely against charity. It just means we ought to make sure that charity doesn't cripple its intended beneficiaries more than it helps them.
My apologies. I really was speaking rhetorically, the meaning being that I had a lot of real-life experience with welfare recipients and the welfare system and I didn't believe (from your arguments) that you did. I still think it is quite possible that your knowledge of the system may be limited to one particular system and how it interacted with you and the members of your immediate family, whereas mine covers a much broader range of welfare recipients with various kinds of disabilities and entitlements (including various scam artists with no disabilities or entitlements) and several different kinds of welfare systems and jurisdictions. And the reason I say this is because I am just floored by your idea that all of these unfortunate people can be straightened out. Not in this lifetime. Not on this planet.
Not all can be. But I no more meant that extreme than you did the other one. I just think we should lean more toward personal responsibility than towards government responsibility.
I got the feeling, reading of your experiences with the system (and BTW, thanks for sharing them!) that you were one of the lucky ones. I am certainly not trying to claim that all of them, or even that a majority of them, are beyond redemption. But some will climb or claw their way out of it and some will not. I found that some of the people least sympathetic to the plight of welfare recipients are former welfare recipients who made good: "I fought my way out, now why can't they?" To state the question is to recognize the illogic of the position. "I scored 100% on the math exam, now why can't he?"
But again, the way you word that is presumptive. The fact is, I am VERY sympathetic to those in need. I just believe that the way out of need is learning the hard lessons of life. It takes hard work to get out of some of the messes life leaves us in. I am all for educational benefits and training programs for those who want to take advantage of them. I think the WPA and CCC were two actually pretty damn good ideas tha FDR had - though I think his socialization of America was largely a terrible thing. Those organizations were not welfare, they were (forgive the anachronism) workfare. People got JOBS and accomplished great things for the country while simultaneously supporting their families in a time of need. For that matter, I was fortunate enough to get hired to do a couple of musicals in high school as part of a Cultural Arts grant in Baltimore. Maybe performing "Oklahoma" isn't quite on par with building the Hoover Dam, but at least I was doing SOMETHING instead of just taking a handout. My sympathy expresses itself in trying to help people up, not letting them stay down.
Avoiding the question because Doolittle's a fictional character is a cop-out.
No it isn't. I did answer the question, though it was buried perhaps in my words (not an uncommon problem with my posts). Doolittle was endearing BECAUSE he was fictional. Aside from the fact that few dead-drunks can sing and dance with the style of dear old Alfred (though some, lamentably, try) Doolittle was a classic buffoon - a bit of light comic relief in the darker comedy that Pygmalion was. He was given funny little lines (like the one I paraphrased - "I'm undeservin' - and I mean to go on being undeservin') that played up his weaknesses as comic strengths. His laments about middle class morality are funny on stage - and we can all have a good laugh at his unexpected "good" fortune and how he'd chuck it but "I haven't the nerve." But in fact, we are in reality more inclined to agree with Tevya who, told by Perchik that money is a curse, proclaims "May God smite me with it - and may I never recover!" Doolittle is a bit like the classic "Hooker with a heart of gold" - a nice idea, but one that doesn't really exist.
You raised a valid point, but there's a valid answer to it. The welfare system's fundamental purpose is NOT to rehabilitate but to support. There are other arms of the government which try to rehabilitate. Ideally, welfare supports those who either temporarily or permanently cannot support themselves. The welfare system is underfunded. Always has been, always will be. It does not have to funds to provide adequate support for everyone, so it cannot afford to squander its inadequate resources on activities not within its mandate. (such as rehabilitation) - - In an ideal world, the welfare support system could be individualized. Each recipient would be minutely scrutinized - - "This one needs support to tide her over till her next job, but this one is in serious danger of having her work ethic undermined if we provide support without attaching character-building conditions to it and supervising them." You are asking for a level of personalization and therapy that the welfare system is not designed to deliver and is not capable of delivering.
That's one way of looking at it. But there is another. I am not suggesting that we get more "personal" with the assistance. I am suggesting that we make certain accountability requirements. In my state, if you get unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are actually seeking employment. Mind you, the requirement is not terribly hard to meet. You need only provide two or three names a week that can verify you visited them for an interview, turned in a resume or filled out an application. And though I do not know, I expect they only check randomly among those names. But at least there is some effort expected of you. I suggest that there is no reason that a welfare system should not be expected to turn its focus from "support" to rehabilitation. It is indeed possible to do, but it would require a change of mindset first. That is what I advocate.
True, your sister-in-law fell between the cracks. She and thousands of others are the casualties of an imperfect welfare system that delivers help on a "shotgun" style delivery system.
I do not think she "fell between" anything. She leapt into. She is not a casualty, she is a willing participant. It ain't rape if she says yes.
Again, you seem to ignore my contention that a lot of these guys are an open book. If they won't admit they gambled away the rent, their wife or girlfriend will spill the beans, or their kids will. The other problem is that even if you can detect the drug use, there is no way to correlate the drug use with the lack of funds - - the guy could smoke a joint or do some hash or opium and still be capable of managing his money. And yet another problem is, even a drug-abusing, coke-fried-shit-for-brains junkie needs food in his belly and a roof over his head.
That assertion (about the "open book") may be true in many cases, but it does not negate my point. Girlfriends lie. Mothers protect. Kids make false assumptions. A complaint of "gambling away the rent" might be falsely made for any number of reasons. So could an absolute assertion of innocence. And again, while any addiction can cause money problems, drugs can do far more damage than gambling or porn addiction or compulsive shopping. But again, your point that one moral consideration is as good as the next is, by itself, a perfectly valid one.
Well, you made some good points. But you have to consider the limitations of the system. Also that not every method of teaching works equally well on all pupils. It's cruel to foster an attitude of permanent entitlement in persons who might otherwise have earned self-respect and pride through being forced to go to work after being cut off benefits. It's (IMHO) just as cruel, if not more cruel, to force people to work at jobs which they either can't find or can't perform without damaging their mental health or self-respect permanently, in order to qualify for a welfare benefit which, in essence, is supposed to be charity. If the system could assess each potential recipient and make an accurate diagnosis of the problem and prescribe just the right combination of giving and firmness, that would be great, but you are talking about a welfare system that never was and never will be. You're talking about a welfare system that has a much broader mandate than any system that I know of.
That makes sense given your perspective, but again we disagree on what the basic function of welfare should be - not what it is.
No, we disagree because you drew the wrong conclusions from what you observed. To pick the simplest and most obvious example, from the fact that you could pull yourself out of welfare, you concluded that everyone else could as well. Or at least that most others could. That's just plain old-fashioned faulty reasoning.
I made no such conclusion. I concluded that what made me stronger could also make others stronger. That may not be true, but it is perfectly logical reasoning. The fact that you disagree does not make that faulty reasoning. It is just reasoning which differs from yours. Again, that boils down to a difference in experiences - which is most often the cause of disagreement between intelligent people of good will.
The real world is what it is. One of us has a more accurate picture of it than the other.
I disagree. I think that we both have equally valid viewpoints, but that neither of us is omniscient enough to make definitive pronouncements on the subject. I would suggest, however, that one of us is more objective about his omniscience than the other.
Well, thanks for not questioning my motives, but I don't see how anyone could question the motives of someone willing to pay MORE taxes to support a bunch of strangers, including strangers on dope.
Well, one could say - and I hasten to say that I do not - that you are a racist, elitist who likes to keep people down because to bring them up to your level would, in your mind, lower you to theirs. One could also say that disallowing the opinions of others who see the world differently from you allows you to have a sense of superiority rather than to face the humbling possibility that you may be wrong. There are lots of ways to question any persons motives. But I tend to think that most people are motivated to do what they think is best, even if they sometimes are just rationalizing. So I don't question your motives - I just see things differently from you.
I see where you're coming from, Pooch, and I don't question YOUR motives, but I think a lot of people who want drug tests for welfare recipients have a number of issues as follows:
1. dislike of welfare recipients and/or junkies
2. resentment at having to pay money to persons disabled, especially if disabled by a drug habit
3. stinginess, greed
4. racism
As I said, there are many ways to question motives. But those labels are no less a means to avoid having to deal with those different from you than are labels like "nigger," "faggot" or "junkie." It takes effort and a little humility to accept the fact that - just as welfare recipients and drug addicts are "real people" when you take the time to actually open your mind and heart - Republicans and Christians and Americans and Southerners and whoever are just the same. People are people, whatever their viewpoints. Experience is what makes people develop opinions, and it is deeply arrogant to think that only your experiences (talking generically - not about you personally) are valid. You can hold whatever opinion you like, and recognizing the merit in an opposing arguments does not constitute betrayal of your principles or mean that you have to change them one bit. But adamant refusal to see another point of view is bigotry - no matter what side of the issue you are on.
Thanks for the kind words, btw. It's nice to come back. I do admit I have missed it - especially the mental stimulation. Thanks for providing your share.
-
"You can hold whatever opinion you like, and recognizing the merit in an opposing arguments does not constitute betrayal of your principles or mean that you have to change them one bit. But adamant refusal to see another point of view is bigotry - no matter what side of the issue you are on. "
Cool .
If I had said that, I would not have said anything elese.
Terse me.
-
If I had said that, I would not have said anything elese.
That's because you are blessed with verbal self-control. I am challenged greatly in that area.
Terse me.
Why would I terse you? I would much rather Bwess you. :D
-
If I had said that, I would not have said anything else.
That's because you are blessed with verbal self-control. I am challenged greatly in that area.
Terse me.
Why would I terse you? I would much rather Bwess you. :D
This is a very succinct segue to a discussion of the disadvantage of minimalism and relying on the interpret of a reader to fill in the unstated.
I am both rebutted and bested in my own style.
You are good.
-
This is a very succinct segue to a discussion of the disadvantage of minimalism and relying on the interpret of a reader to fill in the unstated.
Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's right. I meant to do that.
Really. :)
I am both rebutted and bested in my own style.
You are good.
I'd like to get re-butted. I'll take a smaller one this time. :D
The difference between our styles, Plane, is that while yours may force the reader to fill in the blanks, mine has no readers. Nobody can stay awake that long!
-
<<Even today there are still cultures that allow the weak to die - and not necessarily with dignity.>>
I don't know of any. At the end of a lifetime, the Inuit are supposed to send their old and sick off on an ice floe to die, but I don't believe they've done that in quite awhile now, and they were never exactly mainstream anyway.
I'm not even going to get into abortion. It is very far from a similar mindset, it does NOT involve a functioning member of the community but someone who has never even been born into it, and usually someone not even in recognizably human form.
<< If you disagree just ask Darwin. >>
That's totally ridiculous. Darwin described the evolution of species, he was not describing evolved human societies in any way shape or form.
<<I would suggest that your mindset towards the "low lifes" is - if more charitable in effect - no less paternalistic in principle. I disagree with both you and Justice Holmes that they cannot change. >>
Some can change, some can't - - that's a basic fact that makes sense in the abstract (given the wide range of diversity of human character) and is also something that I have observed through some 40 years of interacting with a wide variety of people. And a welfare system that attempted to differentiate between those who can change or be changed and those who can't, and then customize a personally appropriate plan of development for each of them is a system that will never be funded in this or in any other world. Welfare is by economic necessity a blunt instrument and the relief it provides cannot be tailor-made to suit each recipient. It's a one-size-fits-all entitlement, where everyone in similar circumstances gets the same benefit.
You may well be right - - a welfare system that supports virtually all who apply may be short-changing those who require a challenge. It may in fact be cruelly condemning them to a life of permanent welfare when a little "tough love" could have produced a happier, more productive member of society. But I believe that enabling a welfare system to deliver that degree of customization would stretch its resources to the point where the benefits that were available to those who truly needed them would be even more inadequate than they already are. And the primary purpose of the system - - support to those in need of the necessities of life - - would be fatally undermined. Theoretically tax increases could and should be used to allow the welfare system to be all that it should be. But I'm a realist. The welfare system will NEVER be adequately funded.
I'd love to debate you further on tolerance of others' views, etc. In a nutshell, I believe in my views and I defend them. I don't believe there are two equally valid opinions on anything. Either the two can be reconciled or if they cannot, one must be right and one must be wrong. Naturally I believe my opinions - - the ones which can't be reconciled - - are the right ones, otherwise why would I believe in them? And if mine are right, the others must be wrong. I don't think it's fair to say that amounts to a claim of omniscience, simply because I will always change an opinion of mine if shown reason to do so. But now it's supper time - - late because lunch was late, but supper time nevertheless.
-
I don't believe there are two equally valid opinions on anything. Either the two can be reconciled or if they cannot, one must be right and one must be wrong. Naturally I believe my opinions - - the ones which can't be reconciled - - are the right ones, otherwise why would I believe in them? And if mine are right, the others must be wrong. I don't think it's fair to say that amounts to a claim of omniscience, simply because I will always change an opinion of mine if shown reason to do so. But now it's supper time - - late because lunch was late, but supper time nevertheless.
I'm surprised to find that you think so simplistically. Simple black and white answers are normally the realm of either teenagers or those of low intelligence. You are neither. I feel just as strongly about my opinions - and the inherent correctness thereof - as you do. I can, however, recognize the validity (which differs from the correctness) of an opposing viewpoint. A good example of that principle is St. Anshelm's Onotological argument for the existence of God. Descartes pointed out rather eloquently why the argument is perfectly logical and valid. That doesn't make it true. That is because there are equally logical and valid arguments to rebut it. I happen to believe that there is a God, and that Anshelm's reasoning is brilliant. Nevertheless, it fails to prove beyond doubt that there is a God - just as the counterarguments fail to prove there is none. So although I agree with Anshelm's conclusion for other reasons, it is not because of his argument - compelling and appealing as it is.
But such logical exercises are not the point of considering the validity of an opposing viewpoint. We live in a world where there are at least two - and usually several more opinions on just about anything. Sometimes differing opinions lead to bad feelings, violence and all-out war. Yet in many places on many issues people of strongly opposed views can still get along, in spite of strong feelings. When we minimize those whose opinions we cannot accept as valid, it becomes easier to marginalize the people and that can make it easier to commit atrocities - whether that be Abu Graib, Tiananmen Square, Burma, Darfur or the World Trade Center. None of the people who practice these atrocities think they are evil. They think they are fighting for whatever righteous cause they embrace. You make much of the mindset of America soldiers, and sometimes there is merit in your argument, if not your presentation. But that mindset is in many ways like your own.
One last point. I had a history teacher in my senior year of high school that I couldn't stand. She was very mean, prejudiced against whites, and frequently incompetent. But she did one really neat thing. She forced us to debate issues from both sides. She made me argue pro-slavery. I thought she was picking on me and I told her there was no way to argue FOR slavery. She told me something that stuck with me. "If you can't understand an opposing viewpoint well enough to argue in favor of it, you don't understand either side of the issue." Just goes to show that even someone who wasn't particularly smart could be unexpectedly brilliant. I'll add to that the idea that anyone who says "I just can't understand how a person could think that way" is telling the truth.
-
One last point. I had a history teacher in my senior year of high school that I couldn't stand. She was very mean, prejudiced against whites, and frequently incompetent. But she did one really neat thing. She forced us to debate issues from both sides. She made me argue pro-slavery. I thought she was picking on me and I told her there was no way to argue FOR slavery. She told me something that stuck with me. "If you can't understand an opposing viewpoint well enough to argue in favor of it, you don't understand either side of the issue." Just goes to show that even someone who wasn't particularly smart could be unexpectedly brilliant. I'll add to that the idea that anyone who says "I just can't understand how a person could think that way" is telling the truth.
Bingo.
I learned to be able to argue any side of an issue in debate. We were told the subject of the debate ahead of time, but which side we were to take was not decided until a coin flip the day of the debate. We had to be able to argue any side on a moments notice.