Honest discussion: Questions for the left

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
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? 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?

I'm just wondering, if you take it to the very end (the ideaology), where do you see that getting us? Let me know what standards you have for having social safety nets, and let me know how you feel it's ok (if you do agree) that they DO contribute to a "gimme gimme" class, at least in some part, and how you'd personally feel it's ok to mitigate that.

Just some questions - - what's the ideal balance, in your eyes, basically? I don't see things working out so well imho.
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
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? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?
The state has an obligation to care for the children when the parents will not. Its generally far more expensive - both in direct terms of the funding required for foster care, and in the societal terms of ripping families apart.

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."
You're asking why people would want to make more money?
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?
No. Can't explain a negative.
I'm just wondering, if you take it to the very end (the ideaology), where do you see that getting us?
Can you be more vague please?
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
there is no ever ending UE benefits.
They are pretty unreasonably long, and they do keep getting extensions. This is about welfare, food stamps, etc. also....though. All that
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
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? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?
The state has an obligation to care for the children when the parents will not. Its generally far more expensive - both in direct terms of the funding required for foster care, and in the societal terms of ripping families apart.

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."
You're asking why people would want to make more money?
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?
No. Can't explain a negative.
I'm just wondering, if you take it to the very end (the ideaology), where do you see that getting us?
Can you be more vague please?
I wasn't coming from a smug place, tbh.

I'll have to disagree based on personal experience in some of your assessments. Like #3, is a no? I think that, being honest, there's definitely a disincentive to do better for yourself if there's always someone guaranteed to gunna catch you.


As to the last question, it's not vague it's specific: what's your ideal Countrylook like in regard to social safety nets?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
GT, I think the lefties are mistaking you for a Republican. LMAO.

Good questions. I look forward to you asking similarly hard ones from the right.
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
More, that I just thought of:

Is it okay to have a welfare debit card? Why/why not?> Well, I know why not, because I don't think so. So...I guess....why?

Is it ok for me, who can totally afford her, to have such a HUGE tax break coming yearly now, because my daughter's about to be born? Where do we draw the line on that? Don't get me wrong, I can def. use the extra money. I just don't NEED it, necessarily.
 

Dr.Drock

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,680
Reaction score
949
Points
48
Great questions.

I myself have always wondered how people don't see this situation turning out bad.

"Well I can do nothing and make x dollars, or I can work and make less than x dollars, the same as x dollars or barely more but not a significant number."

I have a decent job so this doesn't pertain to me, but I can't get on a moral highground and guarantee I wouldn't do nothing and cash gov't checks in the situation I presented. If I were raised poor with parents on the government dollar, and they raised me thinking that was ok, most likely I'd be the same way they were in such a hypothetical.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,169
Reaction score
16,504
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
there is no ever ending UE benefits.
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.
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
Great questions.

I myself have always wondered how people don't see this situation turning out bad.

"Well I can do nothing and make x dollars, or I can work and make less than x dollars, the same as x dollars or barely more but not a significant number."

I have a decent job so this doesn't pertain to me, but I can't get on a moral highground and guarantee I wouldn't do nothing and cash gov't checks in the situation I presented. If I were raised poor with parents on the government dollar, and they raised me thinking that was ok, most likely I'd be the same way they were in such a hypothetical.
Good points.

I also think they make it far too easy to abuse. For instance? Seasonal workers collecting u/e in the off months? Ridiculous.

Or, a guy who's laid off collecting unemployment but also making side cash under the table for random odd-jobs. That doesn't happen to be a small piece of scammage there, either. I hear of it occuring pretty commonly, actually. It's sort of like a part of every day life, and nobody "really" calls people on it because it's like "Yea, I'm kind of fucking the government," and the typical reaction is "Good!, THEY tax me to DEATH!"
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
there is no ever ending UE benefits.
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.
It's the most lenient check & balance I've ever seen in practice though, being real for a second.
Also, if the States are setting the bar, why are/were the extensions voted on at the Federal level? (honest question).
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
there is no ever ending UE benefits.
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.
 

BDBoop

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
35,384
Reaction score
5,443
Points
668
Location
Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
As I've posted elsewhere, my 54 y/o sister just spent over a year on UE, for the first time in her life. She worked nonstop from the age of 16, maybe even younger. I just remember her waitressing her way through high school.

If not for the extensions, they likely would have lost their home.
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
As I've posted elsewhere, my 54 y/o sister just spent over a year on UE, for the first time in her life. She worked nonstop from the age of 16, maybe even younger. I just remember her waitressing her way through high school.

If not for the extensions, they likely would have lost their home.
Where's the balance between a country that's poor, and in massive debt nationally, and sayiing "well, some people are definitely going to lose their homes, but unfortunately we can't drag the entire country as a whole further down the debt hole to help beyond a certain point because the outcome of continuing that? EVERYone loses their home."

This is what I mean, is there no limitation, no balance to be struck between good will and the fact that it disincentivises the inner city (there's empirical proof that inner cities are deteriorating, btw).................to actually TRY their absolute hardest to create/work, etc?





Most innovation / invention comes out of necessity. Don't you think humans as a whole have a great survival instinct? Don't you think they'd prosper more if they had lesser of a fall-back, and more dire of a consequence as a result of NOT trying 100%?
 
Last edited:

BDBoop

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
35,384
Reaction score
5,443
Points
668
Location
Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
As I've posted elsewhere, my 54 y/o sister just spent over a year on UE, for the first time in her life. She worked nonstop from the age of 16, maybe even younger. I just remember her waitressing her way through high school.

If not for the extensions, they likely would have lost their home.
Where's the balance between a country that's poor, and in massive debt nationally, and sayiing "well, some people are definitely going to lose their homes, but unfortunately we can't drag the entire country as a whole further down the debt hole to help beyond a certain point because the outcome of continuing that? EVERYone loses their home."

This is what I mean, is there no limitation, no balance to be struck between good will and the fact that it disincentivises the inner city (there's empirical proof that inner cities are deteriorating, btw).................to actually TRY their absolute hardest to create/work, etc?





Most innovation / invention comes out of necessity. Don't you think humans as a whole have a great survival instinct? Don't you think they'd prosper more if they had lesser of a fall-back, and more dire of a consequence as a result of NOT trying 100%?
I was only addressing unemployment. Welfare needs a complete and serious overhaul.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,169
Reaction score
16,504
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
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.
It's the most lenient check & balance I've ever seen in practice though, being real for a second.
Also, if the States are setting the bar, why are/were the extensions voted on at the Federal level? (honest question).
The feds pay for the extensions, which takes Congressional approval for the funds.
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
As I've posted elsewhere, my 54 y/o sister just spent over a year on UE, for the first time in her life. She worked nonstop from the age of 16, maybe even younger. I just remember her waitressing her way through high school.

If not for the extensions, they likely would have lost their home.
Where's the balance between a country that's poor, and in massive debt nationally, and sayiing "well, some people are definitely going to lose their homes, but unfortunately we can't drag the entire country as a whole further down the debt hole to help beyond a certain point because the outcome of continuing that? EVERYone loses their home."

This is what I mean, is there no limitation, no balance to be struck between good will and the fact that it disincentivises the inner city (there's empirical proof that inner cities are deteriorating, btw).................to actually TRY their absolute hardest to create/work, etc?





Most innovation / invention comes out of necessity. Don't you think humans as a whole have a great survival instinct? Don't you think they'd prosper more if they had lesser of a fall-back, and more dire of a consequence as a result of NOT trying 100%?
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.
 
OP
G

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
76,017
Reaction score
11,397
Points
2,030
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.
It's the most lenient check & balance I've ever seen in practice though, being real for a second.
Also, if the States are setting the bar, why are/were the extensions voted on at the Federal level? (honest question).
The feds pay for the extensions, which takes Congressional approval for the funds.
So........
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,169
Reaction score
16,504
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri

Zagg

small el libertarian
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
208
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Location
Chicago suburbs
I imagine that most people on the left would say something on the order of: employment for everyone rather than state aid for anyone.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top