User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 19 of 19

  1. #11
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Orobas raises some good points, with which I generally agree. I won't claim to have the solution to the welfare and benefits issue, but think any workable solution would have at least the following characteristics:

    1. It provides a playing field that is as level as possible for everyone, so people's lot in life really is based upon their own efforts and ambitions.

    2. Related to (1), it avoids penalizing children for the laziness, wastefulness, poor decisions, etc. of their parents by providing them at least with a reasonable start in life. As adults, they can take it from there.

    3. People whose "only" crime is laziness or ignorance or just bad judgment are treated at least as well as those who have landed in prison for committing direct crimes against others. At least they have food, a roof over their head, and rudimentary medical care.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #12
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I agree with much of what @Orobas said, especially concerning the tendency of people to not solve their problems when others solve them for them.

    And like I've said before, I'm all for spending on welfare to the extent that money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere.

    This would basically limit the receipt of welfare benefits to those who are going to actually use it for it's intended purpose, as a temporary life raft that helps to move one back to productive society.

    I would increase levels of oversight in welfare disbursement, and in situations (like orobas mentioned) where people are wasting money on luxuries while buying groceries on food stamps, that person would be completely cut off.

    It is unfair to tax payers to subsidize luxury purchases.

    We at least try to hold the gov't accountable for how it spends the people's money.

    Those that receive benefits paid for by taxpayers should be held to at least as high a standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Orobas raises some good points, with which I generally agree. I won't claim to have the solution to the welfare and benefits issue, but think any workable solution would have at least the following characteristics:

    1. It provides a playing field that is as level as possible for everyone, so people's lot in life really is based upon their own efforts and ambitions.

    2. Related to (1), it avoids penalizing children for the laziness, wastefulness, poor decisions, etc. of their parents by providing them at least with a reasonable start in life. As adults, they can take it from there.

    3. People whose "only" crime is laziness or ignorance or just bad judgment are treated at least as well as those who have landed in prison for committing direct crimes against others. At least they have food, a roof over their head, and rudimentary medical care.
    Point 1 is never going to happen. Welfare or social programs are never going to be able to account for the difference in opportunity between say Steve Job's kids and the kid's of someone living at the poverty level. You could spend every dollar in America and not be able to make that happen.

    You can give people the opportunity to succeed should they work hard, Florida's bright futures scholarship program comes to mind, but paying for a program where everyone can go to Harvard (whether they worked hard or not) is impossible. (note - I got paid to go to UF with a 100% bright futures scholarship )

    Welfare should be for those working their way back to solvency. For someone who despite their best efforts needs a little bit more help to get fully back in the working world.

    With regards to your second point, the sins of the parents are necessarily visited on their children. Unless you propose that the government pay to raise children to some minimum standard (yet another thing we don't have the money for). The responsibility for raising kids is on the parents. There are plenty of examples of people escaping a crap home life to become well adjusted productive members of society. I see no reason to justify the government supplementing parental care. Those kids have an opportunity to succeed in school, whether that school is good or not, they can still get good enough grades to get a scholarship.

    As to your 3rd point I completely disagree. People who have the ability but not the drive to make anything of themselves deserve nothing beyond what they can get now.

    An empty stomach can be one hell of a motivator.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    (Ha, silly INTJs an esfp might spend your money on new shoes, an enfp likely will give it away to charity )
    ಠ_ಠ
    Tentative typing: ISFJ 6w5 or 9w1 (Sp/S[?]).

  4. #14
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    People need resources.

    You can either give those resources to them or expect them to take them.

    Option A seems to be a bit more workable at this point in history. It should be extended internationally though.

    Option B leads to a place that the world probably doesn't want to be in.
    False dichotomy.

    Option C: Produce resources.

    Only option C explains the growth in technology and population over the past few centuries.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  5. #15
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I agree with much of what @Orobas said, especially concerning the tendency of people to not solve their problems when others solve them for them.
    It's like P. J. O'Rourke said in Parliament of Whores; you can't fix poverty by giving people money. Part of that is because of what you said, and also because throwing money at the problem is just treating a symptom, not the root causes.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    False dichotomy.

    Option C: Produce resources.

    Only option C explains the growth in technology and population over the past few centuries.
    Exactly. The total amount of wealth in the world is fluid, not static.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  6. #16
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    False dichotomy.

    Option C: Produce resources.

    Only option C explains the growth in technology and population over the past few centuries.
    The vast majority of resources in their raw form are finite.

    What you call "production" I call manipulation.

  7. #17
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    The vast majority of resources in their raw form are finite.
    Where does food come from? Is food finite? Why is there more food now in the world than ever before? If Malthus was right in principle, why is the empirical evidence lacking?

    While you're at it, Google the concept of "seed corn."

    What you call "production" I call manipulation.
    When was the last time you took some coal and converted it into electrical power? I mean directly converted it into electricity, not paid your utility bill.

    You, personally, have no use for coal. If you saw it on sale at WalMart, you'd laugh. It is production, not "manipulation", to create energy from it. You cannot stick a lump of coal into your laptop to make it function.

    The energy we use might come from coal or oil or natural gas or nuclear power or fusion or solar or wind. Changing useless wind into energy is production. And while you're technically correct that the energy from the sun is "finite", what's a few billion years of a few hundred petawatts between friends, eh?

    If you meant "manipulation" as meaning "changing one thing into another", then I don't disagree. Changing useless things into useful things is both production and manipulation, in that sense. But you also imply the emotionally loaded term of "manipulation", which attempts to ignore the fact that someone actually had to be productive to create something you could use from something that you could not use.

    Or, even better, instead of giving money or health care to the poor, give them some iron and coal and oil and tell them that they can "manipulate" it into a car. (Though if they want leather seats, you might need to give them a few cows, too!) Wealth comes from the doing, from the manipulation as you call it, and is not inherent in the stuff from which things are made.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  8. #18
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Point 1 is never going to happen. Welfare or social programs are never going to be able to account for the difference in opportunity between say Steve Job's kids and the kid's of someone living at the poverty level. You could spend every dollar in America and not be able to make that happen.

    You can give people the opportunity to succeed should they work hard, Florida's bright futures scholarship program comes to mind, but paying for a program where everyone can go to Harvard (whether they worked hard or not) is impossible. (note - I got paid to go to UF with a 100% bright futures scholarship )

    Welfare should be for those working their way back to solvency. For someone who despite their best efforts needs a little bit more help to get fully back in the working world.

    With regards to your second point, the sins of the parents are necessarily visited on their children. Unless you propose that the government pay to raise children to some minimum standard (yet another thing we don't have the money for). The responsibility for raising kids is on the parents. There are plenty of examples of people escaping a crap home life to become well adjusted productive members of society. I see no reason to justify the government supplementing parental care. Those kids have an opportunity to succeed in school, whether that school is good or not, they can still get good enough grades to get a scholarship.

    As to your 3rd point I completely disagree. People who have the ability but not the drive to make anything of themselves deserve nothing beyond what they can get now.
    So laziness, then, is a greater crime than theft, rape, or murder? Or would you withdraw food, shelter, and medical care from the prison population as well?

    My items 1 and 2 are ideals that will probably never be reached, but should be aimed for to motivate our best efforts. That is why I mentioned a "playing field as level as possible" rather than simply a "level playing field". Making sure everyone has access to opportunities is a big part of this, since otherwise even their best efforts just hit a brick wall.

    We don't need a program that will send everyone to Harvard (avg freshman class is only ~1600 anyway). We need a program that gives every child an education adequate to prepare them for Harvard if they have the talent, ability, and motivation to aim for it. After that, Harvard will take care of the rest. Their admissions policy has been need-blind for decades, and they have the money to follow through.

    It is incontrovertable that the sins of parents are visited on their children, but that doesn't make it a good idea. It just places it in the box of things we need to remedy. A society must decide what to do for those children whose parents don't or can't discharge their responsibilities. The fact that some kids manage to overcome a terrible home life does not justify leaving them all to their own devices. This approach not only loses society many of their productive contributions, but also results in greater crime and other more costly problems later.

    Yes, schools can make all the difference, but only if they are decent. In poor schools, students are at physical risk, or surrounded by drug and gang activity, or at best earning a meaningless diploma. Other factors are reducing neighborhood crime, ensuring adequate medical services, and maintaining reliable transportation systems. These have little to do with what we usually think of as "welfare", but make a big difference for people trying to get out of poverty, and kids having to make it on their own. The best individual interventions are the ones that prod/require/enable parents to take their responsibilities seriously, and give them tools to do so when thse are lacking.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  9. #19
    Senior Member durentu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    413

    Default

    welfare state is wrong because you are forced to help others regardless of your will. how? taxes.

    The intent of the welfare state can be far better achieved through private enterprise. Just compare red cross/salvation army vs fema.

    Only private entities are after profit which is an incentive for efficiency and potency. Governments are only after power which is an incentive for coercion and sloth.
    "People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds; it is something one creates." - Thomas Szasz

Similar Threads

  1. How is attacking welfare and government going to change anything?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-24-2012, 01:14 PM
  2. Limits and benefits of competition
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 04:36 PM
  3. Human Value and Animal Welfare.
    By erm in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 11:06 PM
  4. [MBTItm] The Costs and Benefits of Thinking and Non-thinking
    By Provoker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 09:48 PM
  5. [JCF] Self-awareness' benefits and cognition
    By Moiety in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-24-2009, 12:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO