Helpouts or Handouts?

Storm · Aug 9, 2010

justbehappy said:
It's not about whether you deserve it; it's about whether it is the government's job to provide it. The government grants us the right to freedom. It does not assure for us our basics.

Deos the phrase "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell?

It is simply not in our government's role to provide these things. People who want the government to provide everything for them should go to a place that the government does those things, not try to change a government that does not.

Yes it is. This is not some third world country.

I am not asking for people to be taken off of welfare at this time. Taxes are too high and they need to be at the present because we have to fix this deficit (which Obama isn't doing a good job of though). Once the deficit is fixed, I would want to drastically cut taxes and reduce spending. With very low taxes, the vast majority who have a job should be completely fine.

How are low taxes going to help those who can't get a job?

Magic Man · Aug 9, 2010

justbehappy said:
It is simply not in our government's role to provide these things.

It is currently the government's role to provide most of those things, and it should be their role to provide all of them.

People who want the government to provide everything for them should go to a place that the government does those things, not try to change a government that does not.

First, who wants the government to provide everything for them? I sure don't. I am capable of doing it myself, so I don't need the government's assistance right now. Also, the people who do need help don't generally want the government to provide them with everything, just enough to live, and that's all people like me want the government to do for those people.

Second, I'd rather stay here and make this country better than leave, but frankly I would rather go to another country where the lives of the citizens are considered more valuable.

With very low taxes, the vast majority who have a job should be completely fine.

Sure, and then our educational system will be even worse off than it is now, our police, roads and other services will be even crappier than they are now, and, most importantly, those who don't have a job still wouldn't be completely fine, nor would all of those with a job.

Alceste · Aug 9, 2010

justbehappy said:
Alceste said:

Scandinavia is pretty civilized by the standards I set out.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you live, but would you rather live there than in the United States?

I live in Canada. There is absolutely no way I would ever considering living in the US because of America's inadequate health care and education, interminable warmongering and unfathomably high tolerance for homelessness, poverty and crime. From where Canadians sit, it appears that the vast majority of American families live one gun accident away from bankruptcy and homelessness. I don't know how you can stand it, frankly.

Of course people in the United States and the UK act differently, towards the governments and towards themselves, but we're not talking about the UK - we're talking about the US. I have heard of many examples of misused public housing in the United States, and I am sure some are more taken care of than others. My point is that people can be extremely ungrateful when they didn't work for what they have.

Untrue - you claimed that people don't "appreciate" social housing, full stop. You said nothing of the US. That was a blanket statement, and I told you you are confusing a local phenomenon for a universal truth. You can't seriously believe that since you saw one or two wrecked social housing units where you live that nobody, anywhere, even in the US, takes care of their subsidized home if they are too poor to rent or buy. I've seen wrecked houses people bought and rented where I live. Is that supposed to mean something other than there are people who don't take care of their stuff?

Alceste · Aug 9, 2010

Storm said:
How are low taxes going to help those who can't get a job?

Employed folks will have more ready cash for prostitutes and drug dealers.

Darkness · Aug 9, 2010

Alceste said:
Scandinavia is pretty civilized by the standards I set out.
I'm not sure where you live, but would you rather live there than in the United States?

Of course people in the United States and the UK act differently, towards the governments and towards themselves, but we're not talking about the UK - we're talking about the US. I have heard of many examples of misused public housing in the United States, and I am sure some are more taken care of than others. My point is that people can be extremely ungrateful when they didn't work for what they have.

The same could apply to rich kids.

justbehappy said:
It's not about whether you deserve it; it's about whether it is the government's job to provide it. The government grants us the right to freedom. It does not assure for us our basics. It is simply not in our government's role to provide these things. People who want the government to provide everything for them should go to a place that the government does those things, not try to change a government that does not.

You do realise that those countries didn't always have social welfare states in time immemorial, right? They had to change the old classically liberal states into social democracies. :sarcastic

justbehappy · Aug 9, 2010

Storm said:
Deos the phrase "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell?

Ah, more loose interpretations of the Constitution. Shouldn't the fact that the government didn't provide our basics when it was written be enough proof that that's NOT what the framers intended it to mean?

Yes it is. This is not some third world country.

And we still wouldn't be without it

How are low taxes going to help those who can't get a job?

Have you missed my point of this thread? Creating jobs and improving education are things I strongly support

Storm · Aug 9, 2010

justbehappy said:
Ah, more loose interpretations of the Constitution. Shouldn't the fact that the government didn't provide our basics when it was written be enough proof that that's NOT what the framers intended it to mean?

If original intent was the end-all be-all of Constitutional law, there wouldn't be an amendment process.

And we still wouldn't be without it

THe most powerful, affluent nation on the planet has no excuse for allowing a single citizen to go without food and shelter. It's unforgivable.

Have you missed my point of this thread? Creating jobs and improving education are things I strongly support

Both of which require taxes, genius.

Darkness · Aug 9, 2010

justbehappy said:
Ah, more loose interpretations of the Constitution. Shouldn't the fact that the government didn't provide our basics when it was written be enough proof that that's NOT what the framers intended it to mean?

As an agnostic, you should understand the folly of being chained to the will of those who lived hundreds of years ago. Listen, I love what the Founding Fathers did. They were visionaries who crafted a wonderful country built upon enlightened liberal ideals. Times change. Morals evolve and technology creates new social dynamics. Karl Marx is one of the forefathers of the socialist movement, but hardly any of the socialist parties in Europe follow his exact teachings. In fact, we have moved beyond the idea of class-struggle, because social dynamics have changed. Our core principles remain similar, but our methods are functional as well as normative.

justbehappy said:
Have you missed my point of this thread? Creating jobs and improving education are things I strongly support

How do you create jobs without fiscal stimulus? Tax cuts on income are proven to be a horrible way to go about it.

Alceste · Aug 10, 2010

justbehappy said:
Ah, more loose interpretations of the Constitution. Shouldn't the fact that the government didn't provide our basics when it was written be enough proof that that's NOT what the framers intended it to mean?

Ah, more Americans who don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Darkness · Aug 11, 2010

Alceste said:
Ah, more Americans who don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I keep a .pdf of the Constitution on my desktop.

Alceste · Aug 11, 2010

Darkness said:
I keep a .pdf of the Constitution on my desktop.

Now that's going too far!

Kilgore Trout · Aug 11, 2010

justbehappy said:
I thought to post this because of a discussion in another thread.
Which is better:
Creating jobs and improving education to help the poor (helpout)?
Or simply giving them money (handout)?

Is giving free meals at school to kids of poor parents improving education, or giving them a handout?

Overall, giving people handouts separate from a context of providing them a "help out," is both wasteful and unproductive, but the line between the two isn't always clear.

My experience, growing up in abject poverty, is that many poor people will gladly take whatever handouts you give them, and as long as this provides them a level of sustenance they are comfortable with (which is often quite low), they will develop no motivation to help themselves, or seek out "help outs" provided to them.

Essentially, the system should be more robust in terms of helping those who need it, but more selective and restrictive regarding those who will perpetually take advantage of it.

justbehappy · Aug 16, 2010

Storm said:
If original intent was the end-all be-all of Constitutional law, there wouldn't be an amendment process.

I don't think the definition of 'life' has changed

Storm said:
Both of which require taxes, genius.

And you can receive from them in return. What's your point?

justbehappy · Aug 16, 2010

Darkness said:
As an agnostic, you should understand the folly of being chained to the will of those who lived hundreds of years ago. Listen, I love what the Founding Fathers did. They were visionaries who crafted a wonderful country built upon enlightened liberal ideals. Times change. Morals evolve and technology creates new social dynamics. Karl Marx is one of the forefathers of the socialist movement, but hardly any of the socialist parties in Europe follow his exact teachings. In fact, we have moved beyond the idea of class-struggle, because social dynamics have changed. Our core principles remain similar, but our methods are functional as well as normative.

I am well aware that times have changed, but what you're referring to has not changed. Classes DID exist 200 years ago, and the Founding Fathers were not working to change that through the government.

How do you create jobs without fiscal stimulus? Tax cuts on income are proven to be a horrible way to go about it.[/quote]
There are many ways. I'm no expert, but it is completely possible. The most important way is matching people with the right jobs. And with better education as well, they have more jobs available to them.

justbehappy · Aug 16, 2010

Alceste said:
Ah, more Americans who don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Ah you're right, that was silly of me. I don't know why Storm brought it up then because that would mean it has little relevance.

justbehappy · Aug 16, 2010

Alceste said:
I live in Canada. There is absolutely no way I would ever considering living in the US because of America's inadequate health care and education, interminable warmongering and unfathomably high tolerance for homelessness, poverty and crime. From where Canadians sit, it appears that the vast majority of American families live one gun accident away from bankruptcy and homelessness. I don't know how you can stand it, frankly.

Maybe you should live here before you make such harsh assumptions?

Media isn't everything.

Alceste said:
Untrue - you claimed that people don't "appreciate" social housing, full stop. You said nothing of the US. That was a blanket statement, and I told you you are confusing a local phenomenon for a universal truth. You can't seriously believe that since you saw one or two wrecked social housing units where you live that nobody, anywhere, even in the US, takes care of their subsidized home if they are too poor to rent or buy. I've seen wrecked houses people bought and rented where I live. Is that supposed to mean something other than there are people who don't take care of their stuff?

How many times do I have to say that I absolutely did not mean everyone and I absolutely did not mean everywhere? I'm not going to type it again.

justbehappy · Aug 16, 2010

Kilgore Trout said:
Is giving free meals at school to kids of poor parents improving education, or giving them a handout?

Overall, giving people handouts separate from a context of providing them a "help out," is both wasteful and unproductive, but the line between the two isn't always clear.

My experience, growing up in abject poverty, is that many poor people will gladly take whatever handouts you give them, and as long as this provides them a level of sustenance they are comfortable with (which is often quite low), they will develop no motivation to help themselves, or seek out "help outs" provided to them.

Essentially, the system should be more robust in terms of helping those who need it, but more selective and restrictive regarding those who will perpetually take advantage of it.

It's not really the "taken advantage of" part though. Because a lot of people don't mean to take advantage of it. Why work your butt off when you're content and you don't have to work? Handouts keep them content and only content - hardly ever any more than that.

Alceste · Aug 17, 2010

justbehappy said:
Maybe you should live here before you make such harsh assumptions? Media isn't everything.

No, I never would. Besides being at odds with the radically right wing ideology even the most liberal Americans seem to embrace, I simply can't imagine a life with the threat of illness-induced bankruptcy and homelessness always hanging over me. I love my universal health care.

I've visited though. New York, Boston, Seattle, Montana, Hawaii. Pretty sure my opinion is justifiable based on this small amount of experience. I am hesitant to go again because I probably smell like pot these days. I don't fancy a strip search when the sniffer dogs at the border take an interest.

How many times do I have to say that I absolutely did not mean everyone and I absolutely did not mean everywhere? I'm not going to type it again.

OK.

Alceste · Aug 17, 2010

justbehappy said:
It's not really the "taken advantage of" part though. Because a lot of people don't mean to take advantage of it. Why work your butt off when you're content and you don't have to work? Handouts keep them content and only content - hardly ever any more than that.

FYI, having been on welfare twice, "content" would not be an accurate description of the feeling. The sum is meticulously calculated to position you exactly on the precipice between starvation and homelessness and a very minimalist form of survival where you don't go hungry or have to sleep rough but you might have to eat nothing but spaghetti with garlic and butter for weeks at a time. Most of the money goes straight into your landlord's pocket.

You might be "content" living that way until you get a hole in your shoes on a rainy day. Then you begin to suffer a great deal of despair. Never enough despair to please conservative voters though. Their answer for how to best help the poor is always more despair, more misery, more strife. And if that doesn't work, forced labour.

Bismillah · Aug 17, 2010

I have never heard of a man content with welfare

Usually the type of people who imply this don't have a practical view of the working class

Helpouts or Handouts?

Helpout or Handout?

Helpout

Handout

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Reaper of Conversation

Vagabond

Vagabond

Psychoanalyst/Marxist

Active Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Psychoanalyst/Marxist

Vagabond

Psychoanalyst/Marxist

Vagabond

Misanthropic Humanist

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Vagabond

Vagabond

Submit