Personal responsibility vs. Public safety net

[ThePickledPunk]

I wasn't aware that she did any of those things - but on a few of those: "telling the world while at a press podium that America lost the war" and "calling our marines murderers and rapists" and "calling those in Penssylvania racists and rednecks" sounds pretty crazy to me - but I'm not supposed to say that - I agree that the correct way to say it is that they do not reflect my own perception of reality.

But folks should be free to call the sitting president a liar if they want to.
Hiding 90K in a freezer - to each his or her own I guess, but I prefer banks.
Not paying taxes - I'm for paying what you owe
Briefing those with radical, violent pasts - depends
Calling those people who protest unAmerican - well a lot of protesters aren't Americans so .....
and I don't know what dengrous means so I can't comment on that one - but mho is that all protests and all protesters are not created equal - I think when they start calling for violence against others they are getting out of hand.

So either you are naive and not aware that I was referring to the actions of democratice memebers of congress...or you are a deflector.

And as for the typo.....lost my fucking hand in combat protecting your sorry ass...and two fingers on the other hand make it difficult to type......so sorry for the "dengerous" typo.

Not deriding the typo - just honestly didn't know the word and didn't realize it was a typo
I protected your right to snarl and snap and hurl insults at anyone you don't agree with .... your welcome.

And I'm not deflecting - I was commenting on the positions voiced. You see it doesn't matter to me WHO SAID THEM or what side of the aisle they sit on - If I agree, I agree and if I disagree, I disagree.

Hyper-partisan zealots from BOTH extremes like to jump my case - so what? Just confirms to me that I'm doing something right.

Why would a hyperzealous lefty jump another hyperzealous lefty?

 

[KittenKoder]

Reading the title ... since when is government policy a "safety net"? The last 2 decades all I've seen is "fishing nets".

 

[nodoginnafight]

So either you are naive and not aware that I was referring to the actions of democratice memebers of congress...or you are a deflector.

And as for the typo.....lost my fucking hand in combat protecting your sorry ass...and two fingers on the other hand make it difficult to type......so sorry for the "dengerous" typo.

Not deriding the typo - just honestly didn't know the word and didn't realize it was a typo
I protected your right to snarl and snap and hurl insults at anyone you don't agree with .... your welcome.

And I'm not deflecting - I was commenting on the positions voiced. You see it doesn't matter to me WHO SAID THEM or what side of the aisle they sit on - If I agree, I agree and if I disagree, I disagree.

Hyper-partisan zealots from BOTH extremes like to jump my case - so what? Just confirms to me that I'm doing something right.

Why would a hyperzealous lefty jump another hyperzealous lefty?

I don't think he/she would. Why?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Not deriding the typo - just honestly didn't know the word and didn't realize it was a typo
I protected your right to snarl and snap and hurl insults at anyone you don't agree with .... your welcome.

And I'm not deflecting - I was commenting on the positions voiced. You see it doesn't matter to me WHO SAID THEM or what side of the aisle they sit on - If I agree, I agree and if I disagree, I disagree.

Hyper-partisan zealots from BOTH extremes like to jump my case - so what? Just confirms to me that I'm doing something right.

Why would a hyperzealous lefty jump another hyperzealous lefty?

I don't think he/she would. Why?

thats what I thought.

 

[Diuretic]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

It's entirely possible and I would argue, desirable, to have a mix of both. The obvious difficulty is in working out the ratio. The two extremes are simply abstracts and not possible in reality. But are your claims valid?

Do the ideas conflict? On the one hand there is the view that there should be no social assistance to anyone and that people should look after themselves. And on the other hand (I sound like an economist) there's the view that there should be social assistance. Yes, I suppose one does cancel out the other so there's a conflict in that sense.

any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility

I don't think it does. When you use the term “personal responsibility” what do you mean? From my interpretation of the phrase the claim isn't valid. Personal responsibility, if you mean “looking after oneself” won't be affected in those who are wealthy enough to buy whatever goods or services they need to sustain themselves. Any policies that improve social assistance will only affect those who have need of such assistance. If they lack the ability to look after themselves because of a lack of means then it's essentially a nullity.

any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility.

Again if by “personal responsibility” you mean being able to look after oneself, then the claim again isn't valid. Weakening the safety net will only mean there will be a deleterious effect on those individuals who are prima facie unable to look after themselves. That is, poor folks will suffer.

It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

With respect that's a wild claim. It's true that humans are conditioned to seek pleasure and avoid pain or discomfort but it doesn't follow that if social policies designed to help the poor are extended that the non-poor will avail themselves of it. I can't see too many middle class people lining up for food stamps.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

And it's entirely possible that they would find ways of doing so, such as drug dealing, hijacking cars, breaking into houses, stealing from shops and so on.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

And this is obviously unrealistic. Hardship is relative. There are certain basic human needs that are required to keep an individual alive. Being without any of them isn't hardship, it's life-threatening. I would think that no sane person would argue that they be withheld from someone who needs them. “Hardship” will never be eliminated because it is a relative term. A whole nation could have a BMW in every driveway but those with a 3-Series would consider themselves to be in hardship because some had 7-Series.

Since hardship will never be eliminated the idea of personal choices isn't relevant.

 

[Diuretic]

I think manifold is hitting on "the Individual versus the Collective" question that arises in the creation of a society.

There is no consistant balance here. In some cases, the individualist concepts win out, others the collectivists concepts win. Sometimes a mixture of both is necessary.

What you think is the correct direction depends on your own perspectives of how people should live. This is really a very subjective Philosphical problem without a ready answer.

Agreed and yet I'd extend the ideas. I think it provokes the old question, "how are we to live?"

 

[Darkwind]

First you have to define what a safety net is as opposed to a way of life.

There is no one I know that does not wish to give a hand up to someone who has fallen on hard times.

However, proper application of governance in the correct direction and with the proper resources would go a very long way to a society that would have little to no need for a safety net.

But for both parties, it isn't about proper governance, nor is it about caring for the people. It is about power, money and prestige. Period.

The health care bill that just passed the in the House of Representatives is NOT about helping the uninsured or providing better, more affordable health care to the masses. It never has been about that.

It is about power. The power of the government, and more specifically, the Democrats, to use for their own benefit. It is nothing more then a re-election tool to keep them in the money, the power and to hold onto their perceived prestige.

Those here who are using third world examples are doing nothing but pure fear-mongering as that kind of situation simply cannot exist in an advanced nation. There are simply too many opportunities in America to even give that kind of fear-mongering any real credibility.

Let go of big government as the answer.

 

[manifold]

Di,

It's a pretty simple concept. My experience and understanding of human nature leads me to conclude that if you widen the safety net, there will be more people that will jump into it that would have otherwise fended for themselves (and been ok). That doesn't mean it doesn't also help others who would have perished on there own, but there will always be some that take advantage of the safety net.

I'd be willing to entertain a well reasoned argument that I'm overstating the effect, but if we cannot agree that social welfare programs get taken advantage of by those who could manage without, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[rightwinger]

Di,

It's a pretty simple concept. My experience and understanding of human nature leads me to conclude that if you widen the safety net, there will be more people that will jump into it that would have otherwise fended for themselves (and been ok). That doesn't mean it doesn't also help others who would have perished on there own, but there will always be some that take advantage of the safety net.

I'd be willing to entertain a well reasoned argument that I'm overstating the effect, but if we cannot agree that social welfare programs get taken advantage of by those who could manage without, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The key is to not to make the safety net too enticing and to offer incentives of a better living condition if you are willing to work or get training

 

[manifold]

Di,

It's a pretty simple concept. My experience and understanding of human nature leads me to conclude that if you widen the safety net, there will be more people that will jump into it that would have otherwise fended for themselves (and been ok). That doesn't mean it doesn't also help others who would have perished on there own, but there will always be some that take advantage of the safety net.

I'd be willing to entertain a well reasoned argument that I'm overstating the effect, but if we cannot agree that social welfare programs get taken advantage of by those who could manage without, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The key is to not to make the safety net too enticing and to offer incentives of a better living condition if you are willing to work or get training

Sounds psuedo-plausible in theory. But I'll reserve judgement until you can cite a few examples.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the assumption that a significant number of people would opt for a bare-minimum safety net existence rather than the lifestyle that is available to those who make a little bit more of an effort is seriously flawed.

Certainly we can't afford to make the safety net TOO comfortable, but we can't just yank it out from under folks either. IMHO it underscores my personal belief that the best solution is very rarely found on either extreme.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For a second I thought Ravi started this thread then I came to my senses and realized he would never support anything that requires personal responsibility...

Ravi is a SHE.

 

[manifold]

I think the assumption that a significant number of people would opt for a bare-minimum safety net existence rather than the lifestyle that is available to those who make a little bit more of an effort is seriously flawed.

Certainly we can't afford to make the safety net TOO comfortable, but we can't just yank it out from under folks either. IMHO it underscores my personal belief that the best solution is very rarely found on either extreme.

I think restricting your consideration of the matter to only those that would opt for the bare-minimum paints an absurdly incomplete picture.

I agree that it shouldn't be too comfortable. And I would never advocate yanking it out from under people. The question here isn't whether to have one or not have one, it's whether to grow the one that is already in place. And regardless of where one stands on that, I still maintain that it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that it can be grown without negatively impacting society's overall sense of personal responsibility.

 

[rightwinger]

I think the assumption that a significant number of people would opt for a bare-minimum safety net existence rather than the lifestyle that is available to those who make a little bit more of an effort is seriously flawed.

Certainly we can't afford to make the safety net TOO comfortable, but we can't just yank it out from under folks either. IMHO it underscores my personal belief that the best solution is very rarely found on either extreme.

I think restricting your consideration of the matter to only those that would opt for the bare-minimum paints an absurdly incomplete picture.

I agree that it shouldn't be too comfortable. And I would never advocate yanking it out from under people. The question here isn't whether to have one or not have one, it's whether to grow the one that is already in place. And regardless of where one stands on that, I still maintain that it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that it can be grown without negatively impacting society's overall sense of personal responsibility.

Since we are talking in extremes, I think there is a certain percentage that will never develop a sense of personal responsibility. Their minds are just not wired that way. It is not unique to the US, every society has them. No matter what you do, they will screw up.

For these people, I would offer a basic sustenance existence which can be debated seperately. However, for those who are not happy living at that level, we need to offer a path upward through work programs or training.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the assumption that a significant number of people would opt for a bare-minimum safety net existence rather than the lifestyle that is available to those who make a little bit more of an effort is seriously flawed.

Certainly we can't afford to make the safety net TOO comfortable, but we can't just yank it out from under folks either. IMHO it underscores my personal belief that the best solution is very rarely found on either extreme.

I think restricting your consideration of the matter to only those that would opt for the bare-minimum paints an absurdly incomplete picture.

I agree that it shouldn't be too comfortable. And I would never advocate yanking it out from under people. The question here isn't whether to have one or not have one, it's whether to grow the one that is already in place. And regardless of where one stands on that, I still maintain that it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that it can be grown without negatively impacting society's overall sense of personal responsibility.

Well, I guess that hinges on what you feel "grows" the safety net and if improvement necessarily means growth. I know you are trying to stay focused on general terms but since the healthcare debate is the dominant safety-net issue of the day, I think it provides an appropriate springboard into specifics.

For example if you accept 1) for better or worse we have decided that we are going to be a society that doesn't allow people to go completely untreated and 2) Society, in one way or another, pays for and assists in paying for the treatment of those who do not completely pay for their own treatment.

Then I would suggest that healthcare reform can address these issues without necessarily "growing" the safety net - but by making HOW we pay for the net more cost effective and by getting some folks who have not been contributing to their own care to begin contributing.

Point being - that changing the net isn't necessarily growing the net.

But growing the net (imho) would virtually guarantee a proportionate decrease in personal responisibility virtually by definition. If by the net growing you mean the net catches more people, then yes - every person in the net is a person who has a decreased level of personal responsibility. More people in the net = overall decrease in level of personal responsibility. To me that seems a given.

 

[manifold]

I think the assumption that a significant number of people would opt for a bare-minimum safety net existence rather than the lifestyle that is available to those who make a little bit more of an effort is seriously flawed.

Certainly we can't afford to make the safety net TOO comfortable, but we can't just yank it out from under folks either. IMHO it underscores my personal belief that the best solution is very rarely found on either extreme.

I think restricting your consideration of the matter to only those that would opt for the bare-minimum paints an absurdly incomplete picture.

I agree that it shouldn't be too comfortable. And I would never advocate yanking it out from under people. The question here isn't whether to have one or not have one, it's whether to grow the one that is already in place. And regardless of where one stands on that, I still maintain that it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that it can be grown without negatively impacting society's overall sense of personal responsibility.

Well, I guess that hinges on what you feel "grows" the safety net and if improvement necessarily means growth. I know you are trying to stay focused on general terms but since the healthcare debate is the dominant safety-net issue of the day, I think it provides an appropriate springboard into specifics.

For example if you accept 1) for better or worse we have decided that we are going to be a society that doesn't allow people to go completely untreated and 2) Society, in one way or another, pays for and assists in paying for the treatment of those who do not completely pay for their own treatment.

Then I would suggest that healthcare reform can address these issues without necessarily "growing" the safety net - but by making HOW we pay for the net more cost effective and by getting some folks who have not been contributing to their own care to begin contributing.

Point being - that changing the net isn't necessarily growing the net.

But growing the net (imho) would virtually guarantee a proportionate decrease in personal responisibility virtually by definition. If by the net growing you mean the net catches more people, then yes - every person in the net is a person who has a decreased level of personal responsibility. More people in the net = overall decrease in level of personal responsibility. To me that seems a given.

Good points.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

However, for those who are not happy living at that level, we need to offer a path upward through work programs or training.

That's the key. The reason for a public safety net isn't to catch folks, its to redirect. Think public safety trampoline instead of public safety net.

That's part of why I think that ensuring a quality public education is so important. Education is the best way to ensure upwards mobility. My parents had a combined income well below the threshold for federal income taxes but thanks to a VERY good public school, an academic full ride scholarship, and some hard work I now make more than 3 times what they made and can ensure my child will have a better life than I ever had.

The key is to ensure that people who are willing to work do not become trapped below poverty level.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I like the safety trampoline analogy - I'd like to think that is really the way it works. May just seem like silly semantic gaming - but I like it.

 

[KentuckyThinker]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

The best way to treat our citizens is to slash the size (in personnel and spending) of the fedgov by 75% and let the free market bring us back to prosperity. Oh yeah, and lets reverse all unconstitutional government meddling that has passed under the "general welfare" clause.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

free market bring us back to prosperity

Oh brother. This righty pipe dream again. Yeah, we need MORE deregulation.