Is racism even an issue anymore (a personal story)

[Honor]

Luckily, Nithos has already fired back, because all I really have time for right now is to say "Wrong. And not only that, but obviously wrong. And I don't have time tonight to argue it." ...But I'll cover the bits I find a little insulting.

When they say "I had to swim here from two thousand miles away, with nothing to eat and sharks nibbling my bum, and then sleep on the street and eat five grains of stale rice a day while I swept up dogshit for a dollar a year!", that kind of experience is going to cause one of two prevailing attitudes in people...

Hold up. I fear this is a Fallacy by Misleading Vividness.

Maybe you should get your fallacy sniffer checked.

This is not Fallacy by Misleading Vividness, but rather Illustration by Vivid Exaggeration.

The vividness does nothing to help establish (misleadingly or otherwise) any fact or concept, it only serves to group and classify (with an attempt at humor thrown in) those who have, unfortunately, had to endure significant hardship to get where they are... Whether that hardship was authentic, self-inflicted, or a combination of the two.

Despite your opinions about Republicans, I genuinely doubt that you'll find one (outside the Religious Right; frankly I doubt their sanity) who would actually suggest "...so everybody else should have to do that, too!"

Maybe you're not paying close enough attention... That's pretty much exactly what Swordsie's dad is saying... And I certainly couldn't count the times I've heard essentially the same attitude, regarding everything from military service to education to immigration to any other kind of hardship.

I didn't say people are like this because they're republican, or republicans are like this. I said people who endure hardship tend to have one of two outlooks, and pointed out that the ones who have the "let them tough it out, too" outlook also tend to be "punishing father society" type republicans.

On the other bits, which Nithos has covered...

• The old west wasn't like that, nor was it sustainable.
• The differences between communist soviet union and a thriving capitalist republic with decent social services... Well, I almost have to assume you're being flippant.
• As far as 'the conspiracy against the poor' is concerned... I don't think you really think I'm talking about actual, codified 'systems' in place, or rich white guys sitting around boardroom tables scheming... "How are we going to keep the poor folk in their place?"
  But... If you're <i>actually</i> both ignorant and interested in the subject, I'd beinterested in discussing it further, some other time... But this one really is complicated enough that I have to plead school projects and work and not get into it now.

[Toawa]

This is not Fallacy by Misleading Vividness, but rather Illustration by Vivid Exaggeration.

I stand by my original assessment. Perhaps the Fallacy part might be a bit weak, but I maintain that the Vividness is Misleading.

The vividness does nothing to help establish (misleadingly or otherwise) any fact or concept, it only serves to group and classify (with an attempt at humor thrown in) those who have, unfortunately, had to endure significant hardship to get where they are... Whether that hardship was authentic, self-inflicted, or a combination of the two.

The vividness is not meant to establish any fact, its meant to invoke an emotional response. The Fallacy of Misleading Vividness is a mixture of Hasty Generalization and Appeal to Emotion fallacies.

Despite your opinions about Republicans, I genuinely doubt that you'll find one (outside the Religious Right; frankly I doubt their sanity) who would actually suggest "...so everybody else should have to do that, too!"

Maybe you're not paying close enough attention... That's pretty much exactly what Swordsie's dad is saying... And I certainly couldn't count the times I've heard essentially the same attitude, regarding everything from military service to education to immigration to any other kind of hardship.

You are correct, that my statement was too inclusive; let me revise it to "Those who actually suggest (the previous quote), outside of the Religious Right, are a minority."

I didn't say people are like this because they're republican, or republicans are like this. I said people who endure hardship tend to have one of two outlooks, and pointed out that the ones who have the "let them tough it out, too" outlook also tend to be "punishing father society" type republicans.

You might not have said it, but what you did say tends to lead itself toward that generalization. It may be a fallacious generalization, but your words still leave it likely to occur.

Furthermore, I personally don't think either your "stern father society" or your "nurturing mother society" are good systems. Most of the people in society are adults, not children, and they should act like it. They should not need society, the government, etc. to be "parents" to them. It is true that people fall down on their luck, and we should help them. It is true that there can be extenuating circumstances that would lead to people needing extra help, and we should help them. But we cannot "mother" them all their lives, nor should they want us to. The "mothering" leads to dependency, which leads to control, which leads to servitude.

As far as 'the conspiracy against the poor' is concerned... I don't think you really think I'm talking about actual, codified 'systems' in place, or rich white guys sitting around boardroom tables scheming... "How are we going to keep the poor folk in their place?"
But... If you're <i>actually</i> both ignorant and interested in the subject, I'd beinterested in discussing it further, some other time... But this one really is complicated enough that I have to plead school projects and work and not get into it now.

I know, from debating you, that you should know enough to know that such possibilities are very unlikely... But, they come up so frequently in your arguments that, frankly, sometimes I am left to wonder.

But you are right, this can be set aside until later.

[UgghTheCaveman]

Furthermore, I personally don't think either your "stern father society" or your "nurturing mother society" are good systems. Most of the people in society are adults, not children, and they should act like it. They should not need society, the government, etc. to be "parents" to them. It is true that people fall down on their luck, and we should help them. It is true that there can be extenuating circumstances that would lead to people needing extra help, and we should help them. But we cannot "mother" them all their lives, nor should they want us to. The "mothering" leads to dependency, which leads to control, which leads to servitude.

I've got to agree with Toawa on this point, as "purist" libertarian at base as his theme is.

EITHER a "stern father" or "nurturing mother" type attitude from govenrment is bullshit, and dangerous to its citizens, to boot. I don't care whether it's "Papa knows best" or "Because Mama doesn't want you to get hurt", it's still governmental interference in freedom of choice, and that is antithetical to the principals this country is supposed to be founded upon and supposedly holds dear...the principals every Congressman, Senator, Judge, Military serviceman, or POTUS takes an oath to uphold.

The "stern father" characterization given, though, is closer to what the basic ideals of the Constitution supports, as is shown by reading the transcripts of the debates that went on during the framing of it (available through the Library of Congress)...the ideal of "no hand up, but no thumb pressing down shall be offered by the government" is clear to anyone who actually paid attention to middle school level discussions as to why we declared independance top begin with, and what the intentions of our founding fathers were.

This country is based on the ideal of a meritocracy...if you're good enough, and try hard enough, and work hard enough (or have enough luck), you'll make it, if you don't you won't, and good riddance. Granted, this is a false-to-fact ideology framed by what amounted to middle class/upper middle class/upper class members of a misogynistic agrarian society at the time when anyone who wanted to could claim land for nothing, and become a full citizen by dint of the sweat off his own back (so long as he was male, and survived to 21 years of age), and this situation held for the first 150 years of our existence as a country, pretty much, then suddenly our ease of upwards mobility changed as the industrial revolution came along, and solidified in an entirely new matrix, but the basic ideal still works, as is proven by the thousands of people who immigrate every year (legally or illegally), work their asses off in ways we "normal" Americans would feel demeaning or "too much work" for incomes we feel are "below us", and end up, eventually, living exactly what the American Dream promises...a better life than that they left, with freedoms wider than they thought possible, brought about by their own efforts on their own behalf.


The people complaining are those who take those freedoms for granted, who feel that this society wes them something, instead of them owing themselves. I saw Max get jumped all over because another member can't find a job...how many jobs have you skipped over as "beneath you" or "doesn't pay enough"? I must ask...me, I'd join the migrant croppers before I'd take welfare, and whenh I wasn't making enough off roofing, or my military pay, when I was younger, took second jobs that I could work around my "main job's" scheduel, like waiting tables, security guard, taxi driver, and, for one period, "slasher" in a slaughterhouse, or I worked day pay jobs like bucking hay in season. As a result of this work ethic, instead of 5 years (2000 hours as a laborer, and 8000 as a full apprentice), I finished the qualifications to test for my journey liscense as a PIPE member in three years WHILE attending DeVry...simply because I HAD to work as much as I could in order to make the money to cover rent, food, car payments, and school, and I couldn't be picky about HOW I made ends meet.

Fortunately, I am the son of a self made man, and SAW the poverty his folks lived in until his father died, then his mother lived in until he was doing well enough to support her AND us, and picked up lessons in how he made it from him, and from my more successful grandad, who ran away from home at 14, along with his older brother, during the depression, so there would be enough food...the older brother was accepted into the military, grandad wasn't, and ended up working jobs men wouldn't take during the depression, and often barely surviving, until he COULD join up himself...both dad and grandad impacted my beliefs and work ethic alot, and my attitude towards taking charity...authors like Heinlein and Piper just cemented it down a bit better for me, and meeting plenty of "poor kids who done good" and "F.O.B. as a kid, illegally" guys in the car business who were making a decent living simply made it all the more convincing to me, because I heard OTHER firsthand accounts about how possible it really is.


Now I'm not saying I agree with Max's take on his original post, but I AM saying that we need neither nurturing mommy government nor stern father government in this country, but we ALSO need less interference either way...less "corporate welfare", less, and more strictly controlled, personal welfare, fewer "hand out" programs, and more "hand up" programs that require the beneficiary to participate actively and put in REAL effort to recieve any benefit, and THEN require that they repay the system above and beyond that expected of those who never directly benefitted from it, so on, and so forth.

[Swordsman3003]

BTW, Honor, it was my grandfather.

[Shhejtan]

It's odd, the way a classic and everyday story of people teaching their kids to hate those that are different from them can turn into a search for the source of the concept of racism (or any form of xenophobia). It can only be stupefying if you give the average homo sapiens credit for anyting more then he deserves (eating, sleeping and procreation). If you take it for what it ussualy is (a deluded cluster of organic matter in a vast space and with an insignificant lifespan) you'll see it's need to justify and glorify the meger egsistance it has. Since it is inteligent enough to derive pleasure from illusions and not too often intelligent enough to find joy in the deeper understanding of things, the, so called, homo sapiens will often readilly indulge in vilifying anything that is not obviously simmilar to it's (perfect) form in order to make itself more important and in doing so justify everything it does.

[RantinAn]

as is proven by the thousands of people who immigrate every year (legally or illegally), work their asses off in ways we "normal" Americans would feel demeaning or "too much work" for incomes we feel are "below us", and end up, eventually, living exactly what the American Dream promises...a better life than that they left, with freedoms wider than they thought possible, brought about by their own efforts on their own behalf.


The people complaining are those who take those freedoms for granted, who feel that this society wes them something, instead of them owing themselves. I saw Max get jumped all over because another member can't find a job...how many jobs have you skipped over as "beneath you" or "doesn't pay enough"? I must ask...me, I'd join the migrant croppers before I'd take welfare, and whenh I wasn't making enough off roofing, or my military pay, when I was younger, took second jobs that I could work around my "main job's" scheduel, like waiting tables, security guard, taxi driver, and, for one period, "slasher" in a slaughterhouse, or I worked day pay jobs like bucking hay in season. As a result of this work ethic, instead of 5 years (2000 hours as a laborer, and 8000 as a full apprentice), I finished the qualifications to test for my journey liscense as a PIPE member in three years WHILE attending DeVry...simply because I HAD to work as much as I could in order to make the money to cover rent, food, car payments, and school, and I couldn't be picky about HOW I made ends meet.

I thaught I'd just to leave in the quesiton you asked and your own example.
When you've been turned down for shoveling shit.. or waiting tables.. or working illegly... When you've applied for evey job you are physicaly, mentaly or otherwise capable of doing in an 18 month period, and gone 18 months witout a "yes". If you could keep on cranking out the resumes every day anyway. If you keep knocking on doors. If you persist anyway.
Then, and only then do you have any right to discuss the work ethic of the unemployed.

That is my story Uggh.

It's a story of utter fucking despair. I had my contract not get reniewed for the job I'd been working. I had been looking for jobs everywhere leading up to the end, but i was over specilized.
Strangely enough, lots of people wont hire you when you are too qualified in a narrow field. It doesent matter that you applied for some minimum wage or lower job cause you needed the work. With a 10% unemployment rate, you advertise a sink full o dirty dishes and you'll get multiple applicants. An employer wil ltend to hire the aplicant who hey think will stick around.
You know how depressed you can get when you cant even get a job cleaning up shit in a dog kennel?

Yes i could tell you come from a tradition of "self made". This is cause you come off as unbearably self righteous when taling about your life experiences. Well i'm from the same place you came from, i just fell a little further, and had worse luck.
Every single bloody self made conservitive makes the same mistake. They dont realise how goddamned lucky they realy are. They havnt thrown everything you have at life and failed.

Just so you understand, I've been self supporting, earning, et al for the last 5 years. I'm self made too. It was luck that I met up with someone I hadent seen for a year who knew someone who knew someone who needed someone with my specilizations. That's all. Luck.

I resent that in Australia my goddamned tax dollars go to corporate welfare and the trophy wives of the rich. I dont resent them going to people who are like I was 6 years ago. People with a couple more health issues, or even worse luck.
Luck ugg. until your political theories contain an explanation for bad luck, and how a skilled, hard working, ball busting person can go 18 moths without even getting a job delivering newspapers or selling ballons at a fair, then you dont have a theory worth a damn.

[UgghTheCaveman]

RantinAn, I think you missed part of my post, there...the part about fewer "hand out" programs, and more "hand up" that required effort and payback on the beneficiaries' part.

I DO know what you're talking about with the 18 months out of work, though it's from observation, not personal experience. It is legitamate. But rather than paying out straight unemployment/welfare, I'd rather see a system that will pay unemployment/welfare for no more than 60 days while the recipiant tries to replace the job, then requires they enroll in training or schooling programs to continue to recieve benefits of ANY sort, and then perform up to an acceptable level IN those programs to continue to recieve benefits, until they are able to find work they are qualified for...and then, I expect that, after a suitable period, they be assessed slightly higher than normal tax rates to "pay back" in part what they recieved and benefitted from. You spent 18 months out of work, unable to get ANYTHING, and I understand how possible that is, but if I had my way about it, after the first two months, you'd have been required to enroll in school or vocational training at governmental expense and prove it, to recieve the third month's benefits, would have top provide progress reports from that training/schooling to recieve the fourth's month's benefits, and so on, and so forth. Had you found a job BEFORE completing the training/educational program, you could drop out, but you'd owe a little extra back to the community for having given you the hand up while they did.

I don't mind paying taxes into programs that require people work for what they get, even if that "work" is being sent to school or vocational training of a reasonable level...what I mind is paying taxes into a system that pays people NOT to work, or to better themselves, and supports corporations at taxpayer expense when they can't support themselves. But I DO believe that anyone who directly benefits from such a program should pay a little bit more into it for a while afterwards...not as much as they cost the program, but a bit more than a "normal" share of the cost of the program, simply BECAUSE they used it, while so many others just have it there as a cushion against "what if it all goes bad?".


But such programs are NEITTHER enforced nurturing some at the expense of others NOR paternalistic enforced action/denied freedom, because they provide fair benefit to everyone who pays into them at the rate they pay into them (percentage of income wise)...for those who never need such "charity", they pay only for the security blanket of knowing IF they lose their job, and IF they can't find anything else, they won't lose the house, miss a car payment, etcetera, so long as they jump through the hoops, for those who do end up taking advantage of it, they pay a bit more back in than others in their same income bracket would, in order to "pay back" the hand up that society gave them, so it wasn't "charity" so much as it was a GREATLY subsidized loan at rediculously low interest rates that they can't default on without moving out of country.

Of course, there are also those who I'd cut completely off, and tell them "you're welcome to work or starve in the streets", once it became obvious they were simply milking the benefits system so they could live the easiest possible lifestyle with the least actual "work"...but I'd give them every oppertunity to PROVE that's what they were before I dropped that ultimatum on them.

[Toawa]

Actually, that does remind me of my hatred of the concept of being "over-qualified" for a job. (I've heard several reasons for this; not only An's "They want someone they think will stick around." but also, "More qualified individuals are more likely to actually know what their worker's rights are.") I'm somewhat familiar with the concept, being a CS major in a region not exactly known for its CS jobs, but fortunately I'm still young enough that I might be able to fake being a HS graduate if I really had to. (Apparently, between my 16th and 21st birthdays, my appearance didn't noticably change, at least according to the person who took my driver's license photo at 21.) (I also have not been in too desparate of straits, fortunately.)

[Nithos]

The only bit that's got my dander up enough to respond to would be Uggh's idea that after recieving benefits, you should be taxed harder for using the service.

To come at it from two different directions: first off, in a perfect world, maybe that'd be entirely just and practicle. Maybe. BUT, the survival-of-the-fittest to the extreme types come to power from time to time, and that'd be a wide open loophole to jack that tax up, or lower benefits whenever possible because they believe it's wrong to offer any help in the first place. That's just institutionalizing a system for a screwover for the people who can least afford to be screwed.

Secondly, and this is more to my thinking, it's just fucking wrong. In the system you propose, anyone who makes it back to the point of paying taxes again is clearly putting at least enough effort in to be self sustaining, there's no reason to punish them. If they've made that much progress, clearly they were suffering due to circumstance, not some moral failing that needs to be punished. Economically, there's virtually no way you're going to make up your costs off the backs of the recently poor, now working class beneficiaries. It's either borrow or print money, or tax those who have had a better run at things. So why the hell tax people who are barely self sustaining (I assume you weren't proposing we train people until they're making six digits or anything)? You tax someone who's worked hard, made a lot of money in their life, fine. They've earned their money, yes, but they've done it withen the infrastructure society's built for them that allowed them to prosper. And when they shell out a percentage of their income to the government, it's not going to make the difference between making rent and not making rent; it's the difference between rent in the nice part of town, and rent in the working class part of town. You've still got a freakin' roof. When you're that near the bottom, taxes can cut in to daily cost of living expenses, there's no cheaper alternative other than doing without. I'm sure that's not news to you, you've clearly been there. That's why I find it befuddling that you'd want those that have most clearly proven their worth to be hit with an additional burden. At the top there's bound to be at least a few slackers who've gotten their wealth more through luck and circumstances than effort or talent - and even if that's entirely untrue, then it's just comparing taxing the hard working poor and the hardworking rich, and I've already covered my reasoning on that.

[Lowky]

The people complaining are those who take those freedoms for granted, who feel that this society wes them something, instead of them owing themselves. I saw Max get jumped all over because another member can't find a job...how many jobs have you skipped over as "beneath you" or "doesn't pay enough"? I must ask...me, I'd join the migrant croppers before I'd take welfare, and whenh I wasn't making enough off roofing, or my military pay, when I was younger, took second jobs that I could work around my "main job's" scheduel, like waiting tables, security guard, taxi driver, and, for one period, "slasher" in a slaughterhouse, or I worked day pay jobs like bucking hay in season. As a result of this work ethic, instead of 5 years (2000 hours as a laborer, and 8000 as a full apprentice), I finished the qualifications to test for my journey liscense as a PIPE member in three years WHILE attending DeVry...simply because I HAD to work as much as I could in order to make the money to cover rent, food, car payments, and school, and I couldn't be picky about HOW I made ends meet.

Well I can speak from the other side of that. I was laid off, looking for a job to make ends meet. I applied to crap jobs and was repeatedly not hired. I was even told by a Taco Bell manager that they didn't want to take the money and time to train me([/boggle] how much training can there be at taco bell. Here's your meat like substance, here are the different tortilla based wrappings now get to work), because I had a college degree, did not have managerial experience, and felt I was too much of a flight risk. I told him, i was just trying to keep a roof over my head. Still to no avail, he felt i would leave them high and dry as soon as I got a job in my degree field. that was 4 years ago. Guess what, I still am not working in my degree field and probably never will again. Doesn't mean I don't work hard, doesn't mean I don't do what I can to make ends meet. (I have sold plasma, to buy gas to get to work, as the job didn't pay enough to afford gas after paying rent, and called the juice they offered afterwords my meal.)

When I applied for welfare, because was having so much trouble making ends meet, I was denied because my job at the time was part time (never mind the fact I was working 70+ hours at it most weeks), and I "chose" to work part time not full time. If I wasn't working or working "full-time" I could have qualified. If I could have gotten a job working full time, I wouldn't have needed assistance. I was actually told by one person at the state welfare office, quit your job, we can give you money then. And of course I am in the state that passed Alaska on unemployment. Woohoo Go Michigan.

[Lowky]

And of course I am in the state that passed Alaska on unemployment. Woohoo Go Michigan.

Hmm a correlation perhaps. Michigan highest unemployment in the nation. Michigan fattest state in the nation. Maybe if we could find a job we wouldn't be sitting around all day, and therefore wouldn't be so fat.

[UgghTheCaveman]

To come at it from two different directions: first off, in a perfect world, maybe that'd be entirely just and practicle. Maybe. BUT, the survival-of-the-fittest to the extreme types come to power from time to time, and that'd be a wide open loophole to jack that tax up, or lower benefits whenever possible because they believe it's wrong to offer any help in the first place. That's just institutionalizing a system for a screwover for the people who can least afford to be screwed.

not if you put the law in place properly the first time. Make it NOT subject to adjustment, and make the benefits not subject to cutback simplky by making a CLEAR PROVISION...such as stating that vocational training up to the equivalency of an associates degree, or an associate's degree from a state funded college PLUS HS diploma will be made available to anyone who applies through this service, so long as they have been at least 30 days out of work...simply SPECIFY, and make it untinkerable. It's doable.

As for it being "wrong", how is it "wrong" to ask someone who takes from the "household change jar", so to speak, to buy himself a burger, to drop an extra buck in it next time around? The welfare system is paid fopr by everyone BUT those who use it, currently...and we pay for what? the only benefit we (who pay into it) recieve is knowing that that cushion is there if we should ever fall so far as to NEED it. Thus it is only just, fair, and practical that any such system be designed to help ensure that those who DO need to use it get into a position where they DON'T need to use it any longer ASAP, and then pay not only for their share of the "security blanket", but repay at least a bit of what they took out of it. Otherwise, all we're doing is subsuidizing parasites...even if they're good people who are really trying, they are living for that period ENTIRELY off coerced charity.


Lowky, you're illustrating one of my main problems with our current system...it fails to "qualify" those who are doing their best to stand on their own two feet more often than not, but flat out tells you that if you're NOT working, or deliberately work at something full time (but no extra jobs to try and make ends meet) that can't possibly sustain you, they'll qualify you. ANd if you not only don't work, but have a passle of young ones or elderly around who also can't/don't work, have no means of garnering support, and have no adult support system outside of you, you're not only going to qualify, but you'll recieve benefits greater than the income of many "middle class" families' normal income after withholding and insurance costs.


That is specifically what I mean by a "hand out" program...a "hand up" program is deliberately designed to make it so that the only way to continue to recieve benefits is to make progress towards the point where you will no longer need to recieve benefits, whether that be by furthering your education, widening the scope of your specialization, retraining you for a new carreer that is more available locally, or helping you with transplantation costs so you can move to an area where you HAVE job offers that will relieve you of the need to recieve benefits.

[Danikitty182]

apparently the "welfare" that the 'milker' people get is some super-secret kind that you have to join the right club or know the nifty handshake to get....

when my husband got "let go" from his job, the unemployment/welfare money that he got from the state of north carolina was nowhere NEAR his previous paychecks. in fact, we went from a perfectly ordinary lower-middle-class type couple to eating 25 cent ramen so often i wondered if i was going to get scurvy. i sometimes DREAMED of vegetables for dinner.

i have always liked, and agreed with, the general idea of "work-fare" but i've never really seen how it would actually happen. i mean, geez, the social security pension stuff that was originally designed for retired people to LIVE on barely squeaks by paying most of their bills...and don't get me started on medicare. and most welfare i've seen doesn't pay out nearly as much as retiree social security checks (which is kinda sad, really.)

so where will this lovely "hand-up" money come from? no schools i know of will teach me for free. no transportation i know of will get me from here to there for free either. and i can say from personal experience, neither the welfare _I_ got, nor the unemployment kind of welfare my husband got, nor the social security/pension thingy his retired mother gets pays THAT much.

[UgghTheCaveman]

The state is already subsidizing the schools in question, so it'd only be a question of increasing the subsidy marginally, and increasing tuitions for paying students marginally, to re-balance.

And I didn't say that "hand up" programs wouldn't be more expensive than what we currently have, just PREFERABLE, IMO.


But as for what I wasd saying about being able to live a rather confortable lifestyle purely off handout programs, I can think of three examples I currently know (two "perpetual students" who never seem to attend a class, and one single mommy type), and multiple examples from when I was working my ass off in construction. For the three I currently know "milking" it, all three have HUD protected low rent housing in apartment complexes that cost $800+ per month, the mommy in a three bedroom place that rents NORMALLY for more than my mortgage payment would be if I'd financed a $225K mortgage when I bought this house, which, at the time, would BUY a pretty nice house in this little burg. All three have expanded digital cable, high speed internet, cell phones, car payments (and, with those payments, full coverage insurance to pay for by lender demand), and enough money to be going out on a regular enough basis that I ended up getting to know them at one of my own favorite hangouts....a place not all that cheap to hang out at, what with cover charge, two drink minimum, etcetera...all three are living as comfortable a lifestyle, by all appearances (and I've been in all three domiciles) as any of the single folks working for the main employers in town, and quite a bit better than the average student's in town, and a HELL of alot better than can be achieved by someone working "just" a 40 hour week in most retail spots available in this town.


Believe me, danikitty182, if you WANT to milk the system, and take all the advantage you can, and are shameless about doing it, it CAN provide a reasonably comfortable lifestyle....but it won't provide for someone who's goit a house payment, two car payments, and a bunch of other debt who suddenly finds themselves out of work, I agree...unless they chapter7 immediately on everything but the mortgage, and try to get HUD to intervene on THAT.

[Squidflakes]

apparently the "welfare" that the 'milker' people get is some super-secret kind that you have to join the right club or know the nifty handshake to get....

Are you a minority, single mother, or disabled? Because those are the secret handshakes.

[Kingofthemorlocks]

Most awesome example of racism AND irony ever:

Yesterday I went to the school store to buy more toothpaste, and on my way out I notice a booth in the main lobby of the student union (where the store is located). There are always booths, promoting clubs, or charities, or whatever.

The Black Student Union was selling handmade jewelry at this particular booth, to promote multicultural understanding. I've got nothing better to do, so I go over to look at what they've got. The black guy working the booth gives me a dirty look as I walk up and says, "fuck off, whitey."

[RantinAn]

not if you put the law in place properly the first time. Make it NOT subject to adjustment, and make the benefits not subject to cutback simplky by making a CLEAR PROVISION...such as stating that vocational training up to the equivalency of an associates degree, or an associate's degree from a state funded college PLUS HS diploma will be made available to anyone who applies through this service, so long as they have been at least 30 days out of work...simply SPECIFY, and make it untinkerable. It's doable.

As for it being "wrong", how is it "wrong" to ask someone who takes from the "household change jar", so to speak, to buy himself a burger, to drop an extra buck in it next time around? The welfare system is paid fopr by everyone BUT those who use it, currently...and we pay for what? the only benefit we (who pay into it) recieve is knowing that that cushion is there if we should ever fall so far as to NEED it. Thus it is only just, fair, and practical that any such system be designed to help ensure that those who DO need to use it get into a position where they DON'T need to use it any longer ASAP, and then pay not only for their share of the "security blanket", but repay at least a bit of what they took out of it. Otherwise, all we're doing is subsuidizing parasites...even if they're good people who are really trying, they are living for that period ENTIRELY off coerced charity.

That is specifically what I mean by a "hand out" program...a "hand up" program is deliberately designed to make it so that the only way to continue to recieve benefits is to make progress towards the point where you will no longer need to recieve benefits, whether that be by furthering your education, widening the scope of your specialization, retraining you for a new carreer that is more available locally, or helping you with transplantation costs so you can move to an area where you HAVE job offers that will relieve you of the need to recieve benefits.

Amazing. you;ve reinvented how the Australian welfare system works. Guess what. It fails. Big time.
Our welfare systom is national. what we call "Mutual obligation" is enshrined in federal law. you get 90 days, before you have to be either a) enrolled in a school program (up to associate degree) b) undergoing some other form of training, c) performing comunity service of some sort. or d) working a part time job. Yes under the aus system you wouldnt have been fucked over for working part time uggh.
The government was convinced when it introduced this system that it would reduce unemployment by half (at that point 7% of total pop). the actual figure was closer to 0.5% of total populatuion. the spectre of the "dole bludger" has been waved arround so often in aus that its reaching the point of realy bad parody. the government has wated more money on trying to convince people to turn in their dirty mates than they will ever reclaim.
I've even been on "consultitive comitties" I've talked to the senior beuricrats in charge of implimenting these crazy laws.
Their opinion is that there is an attitude in the government of our day (which is right wing conservitive) of punishing the unemployed. they do their best to dilute some of the insanity, but they cant go to far or THEY will end up on the unemployment line too.
thus getting back to the classist argument. The culture of hating people on welfare and blaming them for being lazy dishonest slobs wont change, even if mutual obligation is enshrined by law. Governments will waste more money perpetuating this myth than they ever will reclaim from welfare "cheats"
Oh and having done the math quite closely, i figured that i paied off my debt to society tax wise in 1/2 the time i took to rack it up. While paying off student loans to boot. Punishing someone for getting a job makes a much sence as reqwarding a rich trophy wife for staying at home and "looking after" the kids when thers a team of nannies inthe basement.

[Nithos]

Double post, accidently quoted my entire post instead of editing it... the buttons are right next to each other.

[Nithos]

the only benefit we (who pay into it) recieve is knowing that that cushion is there if we should ever fall so far as to NEED it.

No, that's not the only benefit. Everyone benefits when there are fewer desperate people, and more well off people in society. Robbery is usually inspired by some sort of need for money, if that wasn't obvious by the nature of the crime. Drug use is often a form of escape from a shitty life (and the shitty part starts when you're low on funds). People with nothing to lose are willing to risk a lot more, regardless of consequence. Comfortable, working class people have a lot to lose. In addition, people tend to stay near the income level they were raised in - poor people beget more poor people. And when someone can't pay their own bills, they have to fall back on emergancy services, such as waiting for a condition to get full blown life threatening then going to the emergancy room, getting expensive emergancy care, then skipping out on their bill rather than going in for a moderatly priced treatment early on in their illness. Every extra person making a decent living is contributing to the tax base, and the economy as both a consumer and producer of services or labor. There's a list the length of my arm of benefits everyone recieves by virtue of helping those up who want to get up. And yeah, if you do get screwed by fortune in some way, you've got a net at the bottom to hopefully help you rebound, or at least break your fall. That's no small benefit.

it is only just, fair, and practical that any such system be designed to help ensure that those who DO need to use it get into a position where they DON'T need to use it any longer ASAP

Of course, but there's still no logical reason for hitting those who needed it harder with taxes, other than your own definition of justice. In a system like you proposed, anyone who used the system, and got off it, was NOT a parasite. When offered opportunity, they took it, by inferance they mearly lacked opportunity to begin with, or saw the error of their previous ways and have righted themselves. Taking money out of their pockets is only going to serve to keep them down. So if they're a productive person making a decent living, why should they pay more taxes than their neighbor working the same job simply because they lacked opportunity the first time around? Other than revenge and resentment that is. Does needing some financial assistance really warrent vengence?

and then pay not only for their share of the "security blanket", but repay at least a bit of what they took out of it.

Paying in to it at the same level as everyone else IS paying their fair share. Everyone pays their insurance premium, some use it, some don't. You may get more of your money's worth when you need your insurance, but no one wants to win that craps shoot. You pay for the coverage, not for the service.

Otherwise, all we're doing is subsuidizing parasites

Once again, needing help to become self sustaining doesn't make you a parasite. When offered a hand up, the one who takes it and gets up is not a parasite. The one who takes your hand and pulls you down is. Just because some people will try and pull you down doesn't mean it's not worth trying to help others up (that's not in response to anything, just a general statement). If they pull down on you, you let them go. If they stand up, you both get up and help the next two up, each according to their ability.

[UgghTheCaveman]

Amazing. you;ve reinvented how the Australian welfare system works. Guess what. It fails. Big time.

Yeah, but something works there that wouldn't work here (and isn't working that well in CAN or the U.K., from what I've been reading)....Nationalized Health Care...changing the environment CAN change the result, and I beleieve it would, in this case...two countries set up under totally different base governmental and economic realities.

AMoF, my econ prof once claimed the U.S. has been a "unique economic profile and environment pretty much since the start of the"Big Beef" days, and steeadily became more so up until about its bicentennial, since which, it's been homoginizing into the world economy, as all economic giants eventually must"

No, that's not the only benefit. Everyone benefits when there are fewer desperate people, and more well off people in society.

Agreed, but having fewer desperate people doesn't come from handing them a check every month, amongst other benefits...the old saw about "give a man a fish, teach a man TO fish"

Of course, but there's still no logical reason for hitting those who needed it harder with taxes, other than your own definition of justice.

If the word "taxes" offends you, don't call it taxes, but they used the system "more" than the rest of us, and benefitted more directly, and thus owe more TO it. It's kind of like having a communal pickup truck that anyopne in a multip-person household is welcome to use...everyone chips in for the insurance and maintenance on it, to make sure it's running and legally driveable, but the guy who uses it to pick up some new furniture needs to replace the gas he used, too.

Paying in to it at the same level as everyone else IS paying their fair share. Everyone pays their insurance premium, some use it, some don't. You may get more of your money's worth when you need your insurance, but no one wants to win that craps shoot. You pay for the coverage, not for the service.

But insurance isn't compulsory (liability coverage of some sort is compulsory in order to legally drive, and insurance is the easiest way to get this coverage, but most states allow for other methods, such as this state allowing one to put $80K in bond to cover minimum liability standards), nor should it be. Insurance is a game, that by its very nature, guarentees that most people will pay in more than they can ever get out of it, which is unjust on the very face of it, if compulsory to participate in...freedom of choice ALSO means obligation to face the results of those choices.

And a welfare system isn't "insurance"...and if it WAS, then our welfare system would be one more argument against nationalizing health care in this nation, just by pointing to how screwed up the "welfare insurance" system is.

Once again, needing help to become self sustaining doesn't make you a parasite. When offered a hand up, the one who takes it and gets up is not a parasite. The one who takes your hand and pulls you down is. Just because some people will try and pull you down doesn't mean it's not worth trying to help others up (that's not in response to anything, just a general statement). If they pull down on you, you let them go. If they stand up, you both get up and help the next two up, each according to their ability.

Well said, and I applaud and agree with the sentiment, however, if you give someone something for nothing, they often fail to recognize the value of it (this is why free advice is so often ignored, but a paid consultant is almost never ignored)...part of the reason I am so insistant on wanting that token "payback" is so that the recipiants VALUE the system, and have added motivation to KEEP not needing another "hand up", regardless of how hard it may require them to work to avoid it. There ARE too many parasites in our nation, as our current welfare statistics and "frivolous/nuisance" lawsuit statistics demonstrate all too clearly....we have FAR too many looking for the easiest way possible to get as much as they can with the least effort, and least hit to whatever pride they may have. So, to me, it seems we must make our "hand up" programs require alot of effort, or hit heavily and universally in the pride...since I don't like demeaning people, especially for things that often were outside their ability to control, I prefer the "make it take alot of extra effort" route.