Re-stigmatize government assistance?

[manifold]

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

The Liberals and the Democrats would have nothing to do with that.

 

[Ravi]

I never knew it was un-stigmatized. What planet are you living on?

 

[manifold]

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?

The Liberals and the Democrats would have nothing to do with that.

So?

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.

 

[manifold]

I never knew it was un-stigmatized. What planet are you living on?

It's no longer surprising how little you know.

 

[xotoxi]

Just like we have a sex-offender registry, we should have a registry of all people who receive government funds.

However, it would be a very large registry, since it would include nearly everyone over the age of 65.

 

[manifold]

Just like we have a sex-offender registry, we should have a registry of all people who receive government funds.

However, it would be a very large registry, since it would include nearly everyone over the age of 65.

Well, the nice thing about growing old is you really don't give a shit what people think. So the stigma wouldn't affect the elderly much anyway, which in this case would be a good thing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Social Security shouldn't exist BUT it does. And just about everyone receiving it PAID taxes for years to the fund. Not even close to the same thing as welfare. Everyone that works pays into Medicare as well.

 

[Ravi]

I never knew it was un-stigmatized. What planet are you living on?

It's no longer surprising how little you know.

Your threads of late have been full of strawmen.

Welfare recipients have been demonized since the beginning of time.

 

[manifold]

Welfare recipients are RARELY stigmatized by their peers today.

To suggest otherwise betrays an abject ignorance or a willful, agenda driven peddling of disinformation.

 

[Ravi]

By their peers?

 

[xotoxi]

We were talking about this the other day...in our state, and maybe others, when someone goes on disability through the state, they are forbidden from working at all. And if they work and earn any money, their benefits are withdrawn.

I personally know many patients who fall into the situation where they might be able to work 10, 15, 20 hours a week, but if they do, they will not make enough money AND lose their benefits.

It would only make sense for the state to change these policies to ENCOURAGE people to work the most that they can, while not completely taking away their benefits.

This could be a way to do it:

If you cannot work at all due to disability, then you would get a certain amount... for arguments sake, say $20,000.

If you are able to work some, then you would be able to keep the money that you earn, and your benefit would be reduced by 50% of what you earned.

So, if you earned $10,000, then your $20,000 would be reduced to $15,000, for a total wage of $25,000...thus it would be an incentive as you would receive more money if you worked than if you just sat home, and the state would save some money.

Of course, this benefit would diminish if you were able to work 40 hours or if you were able to make you entire benefit through work.

Just some of my thoughts to make public assistance better...

 

[manifold]

Yes, by their peers.

Being demonized on the radio by Rush Limbaugh doesn't count.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We were talking about this the other day...in our state, and maybe others, when someone goes on disability through the state, they are forbidden from working at all. And if they work and earn any money, their benefits are withdrawn.

I can vouch for this. My dad became practically a prisoner in his own home once his epilepsy advanced to the point he had to go on welfare. Mom faced restrictions on her income too. I recall many times growing up Mom and Dad trying to do the math on determining what would be better for us kids: increased hours at the store (which would lead to reduced benefits for Dad) vs. reduced hours at the store to stay inside the guidelines.

I don't necessarily agree with the choice they made, but I do understand they did what they thought was best.

 

[strollingbones]

i think there is enough stimaga...and who else would you like to brand? the liar, theif and indian chief?

their peers? if you are in the inner city most of the "peers" are on the same programs...i just dont think welfare if the silver spoon everyone who is not on it..claims it is...but then i am not a welfare queen who knows the ins and outs of all the programs...

 

[saveliberty]

We have a very effective free health clinic here and also several food pantries which help a great deal. The great part about it is it fits our local needs and has no federal rules, regulations or paperwork. Local people serving local needs.

Government assistance is a failure of local people to meet the needs of their area. It is a stigma on the client and citizens.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[manifold]

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?