Honest discussion: Questions for the left

1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?

2.) As it pertains to question number one, do you feel that the overabundance of safety nets, such us an ever-extending unemployment benefit, effects ambition AT ALL? If not, how can that be?? If so, at what point do you look for an alternative route to just saying "here you go."

3.) Do you feel that social safety nets AT ALL are playing a part in how poorly our inner city families are turning out? If no, explain how that can be. If yes, then what's the big idea?

1) Off the top of my head, I would say there is no cut off point. We could either pay some guy $20K a year in welfare, or we could cut him off and pay $50K a year for the additional cop when we see a rise in crime.

2) In California, the maximum unemployment is $450 a week. That's the equivalent of an $11/hour job. Anyone who is happy living on that has no ambition to begin with.

3) No, and has been pointed out earlier, I can't explain a negative. What I do think is affecting inner city families is a lack of opportunities to move up and out. Again, if you cut their money and cut their schools, which is their best way to get out, then be prepared for a rise in crime and a need to hire more cops.
 
1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?

It would depend if work ready members of the household were availing themselves of education and training programs, as all states are afforded Federal funding to provide such services. The problem is many states do a poor job of making benefits contingent upon successful participation in such programs.

On the Federal level, the work requirements for food stamps were suspended in light of high unemployment in 2009; TANF recipients are required to participate in a work activity but that has more to do with ‘working off’ your welfare than providing a roadmap to self-sufficiency.

It’s therefore appropriate to hold recipients of state benefits accountable for their efforts to find work, but in that context it’s incumbent upon the state to ensure a reasonable policy of job search and training assistance.

2.) As it pertains to question number one, do you feel that the overabundance of safety nets, such us an ever-extending unemployment benefit, effects ambition AT ALL? If not, how can that be?? If so, at what point do you look for an alternative route to just saying "here you go."
Humans have an intrinsic desire to be successful, the notion that public assistance acts as some sort of a disincentive is a fallacy given the fact the majority of food stamp recipients are employed. The idea that the only way to get those receiving benefits off of assistance and back to work is by threatening to end those benefits is part of that fallacy.

Indeed, participation in public assistance programs has more to do with the state of the economy and availability of jobs than the alleged desire of some to remain unemployed and collect benefits.

3.) Do you feel that social safety nets AT ALL are playing a part in how poorly our inner city families are turning out? If no, explain how that can be. If yes, then what's the big idea?

The classic myth is that urban communities were doing just fine until ‘welfare’ was introduced and messed everything up. The problem wasn’t public assistance per se but its inconsistent application, primarily the consequence of capricious political machinations and the failure to follow up with employment and training programs.

Again, some draconian ‘cold turkey’ approach of punitively cutting off benefits won’t work – and could make matters only worse. Any serious effort to address the issue needs to be done in a comprehensive, pragmatic manner, free of political, social, or cultural dogma.
 
They are pretty unreasonably long, and they do keep getting extensions. This is about welfare, food stamps, etc. also....though. All that

The states get to set the time line for UE benefits, 20 weeks is the norm.
Food stamps, are not a lifetime benefit either, there are limitations to all welfare. On SNAp, foodstamps, has a requirement that you look for work and report theses searches to the unemployment office, or you will be sanctioned.

As far as food stamps - - what's the limit? I didn't know there was one.

Have you ever seen that special on Ole Dirty Bastard? He was a millionnaire rapper who also continued to collect his welfare. And, he was very public about it.

How does an old man collect welfare?
 
The corporate welfare issue is another entirely. I'm likely with you, on that.

It's really more intertwined with it than many realize.

Yea, though, based on averages being unemployed for more that 6mos would be a special case (this recession isn't normal by any means), but the special case shouldn't be the rule.

In my opinion, the 6 months you do have, plus the 20 or-so weeks ue, to be used after or before your savings (I'm not sure), would in the great majority of cases be enough time to get yourself back to planted on your feet.

True in some instances but that assumes no other emergencies follow the original, even for the special cases...and we know 'shit happens' almost everyday. To me it keeps coming back to what's enough to generally equate someone with being financially reasonable/responsible? To which I think there is no real answer, only opinions. Everyone can't be wealthy, and I don't think it's reasonable to think someone that lives check to check should be able to save up that much money in every instance, and it's not that they aren't trying, they're just apparently not trying enough. The whole discussion gets blurry at this point.

You are right that this is obviously all opinion, and also that the individual situations can vary greatly. I would like to ask this, though : do you think that the person(s) who live paycheck to paycheck, who try to save money but cannot do so, are in a good position to purchase a house?

Absolutely not. Both parties involved had a hand in the irresponsibility on that issue.

I think that people in this country do not, in many cases, plan for the future with their money. There are many reasons for this, and in a lot of ways out society seems to be based on it (so much is based on payments over time, loans, and debt), but it is still playing with fire to an extent.

Does this mean we should not have any governmental safety nets? Of course not. I think the bigger issue may be fraud and corruption, rather than the rules as they stand being bad. As with so many political issues, we don't necessarily need to make new rules or rewrite the current ones, just enforce the ones that exist and prevent cheating as much as possible.

I pretty much 100% agree with this. Also note that a weak dollar is more financially crippling to the less-than-upper classes.
 
My mother in law (83 years old)lost all of her retirement when the stocks crashed in 2008. Those saftey nets can be lost on other circumstances other than ur own deeds.

Your MIL, at her age, should have had her retirement in something much less risky than stocks... Stocks are not a "safety net"...

again u assume what u don't know.

My comments assume nothing... Just simple facts - stocks are not a retirement safety net for an 83 year old woman...
 
I was only addressing unemployment. Welfare needs a complete and serious overhaul.

So does unemployment, imo.

It's a tough life when your sister is going to lose her home, but what's a home vs. an apartment but a status picture and a sign of your own financial stability? What's wrong with her life actually REFLECTING that she lost her job? Having to sell thing/ her home, and building herself back up?

Is she starving like an african child? Lacking an education for a future job? Built no real savings at age 54? Honest, not smug, questions.

Honest not smug? Okay. Are you fucking kidding me?? She worked her whole life. She's working again now. So the fact that nobody would hire her over the course of 14-15 months means she should fall through the cracks. Right? How old are you? Would you want that for your parents??

I'm living in someone else's home. I have a room with a family. Sometimes, their son asks me why I'm not in my own house, and when I will be. Well, I'm here because his parents are in the same shoes I am - but he doesn't need to know that. So we just tell him that I'm saving money to get my own house.

Life isn't supposed to suck like this, home skillet. We lived our lives as law-abiding citizens who paid our taxes and contributed to our communities. So now we should just go oh, well. I lost my job. That's not bad enough. I should lose my home as well. And my dog, of course, since they aren't generally welcome in apartments.

I'm really not following your alleged logic at all.
The logic is, before buying a home, one must plan for every situation......One must plan to have at least two years worth of EMERGENCY mortgage payments locked into an account, before even thinking about signing the note.

A home for most people will be the biggest investment they ever make. Going into it without PERSONAL safety nets in place, is friggin' ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
I hope you realize that your questions only demonstrate how you frame or view the world? They are off the wall to a person who grew up poor. I would not ask those questions of anyone for two reasons: they are not a relevant thought in my life, and I do not see poor people as dependents, I see them as normal people. Rich people look the same to me and I see lots of both. You start from an enormous presumption. If your ideas came from the real world they would be different, nuanced and less assumptive.

Do you know people who would react in the manner you describe? If you raise your children with the finer things in life do they become lazy and dependent? You seem to think so and that would mean all well to do people, especially their children, are really lazy and dependent. Some are.

1. Never, makes no sense, it assumes they can magically turn middle class once you show them tough love, and until children can pick their parents and class I'd go on with helping them. Your point also assumes you know their background and capabilities. PS the rich are often in the same predicament and often it is mommy and daddy who provide.

2. There are not enough safety nets if we want to label them that way. If we are moral, charitable, and/or religious, it doesn't matter much as this is what we are supposed to do, the golden rule is written into the text of all religions, and we exist for a second, why waste it worrying over motivations you can't fathom. If you must worry and ponder, worry and ponder over an economic system that often creates this situation. Do something there, help there.

3. Do you think the safety nets that provide the rich in this nation with more than they work for is causing the likes of a Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff, or the crooks and fools who rob and steal daily on wall street? Do you think the privileged life that grew out of the great depression spoiled Americans at the top so badly they forget they only have what they have because people, men and women in unions and together fought against the ravages of industrialism and its often cruel work conditions? Do you think the wealthy in America, who outsource because wages are slave wages in third world nations, and then sell those products in America for enormous sums, are a good thing for the nation and for families here? Families are complex and having nothing in life make for many failures, morally having lots in life makes for many failures too. It would seem there is something else at work here as families can be good or bad on either side of the tracks.

Last - Wondering or is that assuming again? There is no 'gimme gimme' class in America except in the minds of the impressible. Do a welfare life sometime and tell us how lovely it is. We don't live in Sweden or Denmark where the golden rule still applies even if imperfectly. Reagan's Cadillac mom didn't even exist, and while there are many crooks and robbers among the rich and poor, often those moralities grow out of need or opportunity. If the opportunity to work productively exists, life is better for all. if you visit Philly sometime, I can take you to the closed factories where city folks lived the good life, who road the bus or El or even walked to work. Or Reading Pa or any number of places. Crooks and robbers we will always have, the love of money is too great, productive work is what we are missing. The opportunity for work, and a moral or religious core in America are absent today, these should be the real puzzlement. Where did they go, you demonstrate too well their loss with your questions that start from a place that doesn't even exist.
 
Last edited:
Maybe tomorrow I'll do the right.

I'm asking from an honest place and am asking ahead of time, don't bother responding to be smug, etc. and especially if this question isn't even addressed at you, to begin with.


So, I have a few questions:

I'll just fire them off.

1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement?
Get serious. What would "conservatives" DO, without poor-people???

:eusa_eh:

If you didn't have poor-people (to point-out), and be able to say "At least I'm doing better, than them!"....Hell, you might (actually) have to start working on your OWN Life!!!

You've been using poor-people....as a distraction from your own laziness....long-enough.

How the Hell is our economy supposed to improve....with people, like you, doing the minimum (required)?

"Good, enough!" ain't gettin' the job done.

*

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forum List

Back
Top