Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
Nah, one should wear their leachiness like a badge of honor.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not talking about passing a law that welfare recipients get deadbeat tatooed on their forehead. I'm talking about changing society's attitudes and leveraging peer-pressure to establish a disincentive to be on the dole.
Welfare State = Government BUY the people.
Welfare State BUYS votes , welfare state purveyors acquire power.
.
Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run....
A few of these other discussions got me thinking... again.
I know this is going to sound really harsh, and that's because it is. We've all heard stories about people who ended up there through no fault of their own. But I cannot help thinking that the overall good of society could benefit from re-stigmatizing government assistance. In short, make people feel like worthless shit if they need a handout. Some people already feel that way naturally. But in some circles, it appears that working the system for unneeded handouts is considered normal, accepted and even lauded.
Do you think it is even possible to re-stigmatize government assistance?
If so, do you think it would do more good than harm, or vice-versa?
I dn't think that welfare should be demonized because there are times when people need it such as our 22% unemployment we have right now. I have a problem with welfare states that thinks its their job to provide for the masses instead of allowing people to be self-sufficient human beings.
Hey now, that's some pretty well crafted empty rhetoric right there. You sure you're not a closet Obamaphile?
Good, thought-provoking question imho.
I know that the general move is toward de-stigmatizing EVERYTHING and that is not necessarily a good thing imho.
But if you've convinced someone that they are a no-good, worthless, POS, drag on society, then how big of a pyschological jump is it for that person to start viewing themself as a VIOLENT, CRIMINAL no-good, worthless, POS, drag on society?
Or if they are already convinced that they are just a garden-variety, no-good, worthless, POS, drag on society then does that make it harder to rehab that person and help them re-make themselves into a real productive member of society?
And does the stigma encourage more people to fight harder to keep themselves afloat? How many will it influence? How many will it keep off assistance? How many will be driven deeper into anti-social behavior BECAUSE of the stigma?
Good questions - I got no answers - but IMHO they are very good questions.
I'm not talking about passing a law that welfare recipients get deadbeat tatooed on their forehead. I'm talking about changing society's attitudes and leveraging peer-pressure to establish a disincentive to be on the dole.
Welfare State = Government BUY the people.
Welfare State BUYS votes , welfare state purveyors acquire power.
.
Indeed:
John Cassidy on ObamaCare - WSJ.com
Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run....