Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

[russ_watters]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

 

[WhoWee]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

So would I Russ. Living within your personal means and personally responsiblity used to be the American standard.

From an article written in 1994. My bold.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-american-tradition-of-personal-responsibility
"Our society was founded on an ideal: Who your ancestors are doesn't matter; who you are matters. You rise or fall on your achievement or your failure. That and economic opportunity, which is a result of the American individualist ideal, are the primary reasons why America has been the world's most popular magnet to people from every culture. That is why immigrants often say that they are more comfortable here than in their native El Salvador, their native Nigeria, or anywhere else. That is why, historically, we tended to attract individualists who wanted to be judged not by their ethnicity, geography, or race, but by who they are."

America has long been the land of opportunity - the expectation of that is to try and succeed - to "make it", to prosper and create financial stability for your family. To facilitate the way to a better life for your children than your own - growth.

How does a welfare mentality fit into this ideal? How does dependence upon the Government for food, shelter, income, healthcare, and even nursing home care and burial costs fit into this ideal?

Poverty should be a motivation to succeed - it should not be an acceptable way of life - free of personal responsibility - once again - IMO.

 

[thephysicsman]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example?

 

[WhoWee]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

What would you do in such a situation - where would you start - do you have a plan?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example?

I am so fed up with your logic. Unless you want to return to the animal kingdom than stop pestering me with this radical right wing propaganda BS. Stop replying to my posts with ill thought out one word answers! Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals. An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection. Money is a necessity of survival in our civilization. If you create a financial incentive NOT to help those in need than in order to compete in the market and for survival you will have to stop giving to the weak. Eventually it will become impossible to do so in order to compete for survival. These are the laws of natural selection. The nice guy cannot win.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

HEY! A real answer!

 

[WhoWee]

radical right wing propaganda BS

This is your response to the question:

"I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example? "

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

You are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance in the first place. And as an able bodied person you should be able to pay for this kind of thing. Not everyone can which is a problem that really is to big for this post. What I was trying to point out is that sometimes people need things and they can't afford them and that's when SS should come in and not 'volunteer charity'(I already explained my reason for this). If I was out of work I would not go on unemployment. I am way to proud for handouts. And people that can support themselves should. Which I have already stated a couple times now.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

This is your response to the question:

"I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example? "

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone.

When you put it that way - it kind of makes you feel sorry for that 1% of the population the Dems keep wanting to tax at higher rates - doesn't it?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Were you aware that despite the current extreme deficit spending, inflation is currently very low? Inflation is not what is driving us toward bankrupcy - it is the simple issue of decreased tax revenue due to a slowdown in the economy combined with increased spending on government bailouts (which doesn't include an increase in social security spending).

In fact, you have the issue backwards: inflation helps a debt problem by reducing the amount you owe.

If you want to discuss this I think we should do so on a different thread. I do want to reply to this.

 

[thephysicsman]

People have a right to keep what they earn.

Unless you want to return to the animal kingdom than stop pestering me with this radical right wing propaganda BS.

I'm not right wing, but reality-oriented.

Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals.

I'm not against law. As for the rest of your argument, it's nonsense. Humans have free will.

An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection.

I'll buy that. But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.

Whowee asked Bil:

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

I guess Bil is only willing to help with other people's money. He has no respect for other people's hard work, especially affluent people's work. The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the aninals, according to Bil's reasoning.

 

[WhoWee]

There is one lawmaker in Kentucky that wants to make sure benefits are appreciated.

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/01/17/1600950/kentucky-lawmaker-wants-random.html

"FRANKFORT — A state lawmaker wants random drug testing of adult Kentuckians who receive food stamps, Medicaid or other state assistance.

Those who fail the test would lose their benefits under House Bill 208, filed by Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster.

Napier's proposal has won the backing of powerful House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, but critics say it would stigmatize welfare recipients and possibly harm their innocent children. "

So far, it seems the biggest concern is that innocent children might be hurt - by their parents who can't put down the drugs. Perhaps a failed drug test is a sign of an unfit parent as well?

 

[thephysicsman]

Depends what kind of drugs.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals.


I'm not against law. As for the rest of your argument, it's nonsense. Humans have free will.

An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection.


I'll buy that. But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.

Whowee asked Bil:

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

I guess Bil is only willing to help with other people's money. He has no respect for other people's hard work, especially affluent people's work. The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the aninals, according to Bil's reasoning.

MY QUOTES IN BOLD

My replies in order from top to bottom:

Can you please explain why my argument is nonsense. An explanation in all your one liner answers is really necessary in order for you to have any argument at all. So far you have provided nothing to back up any of your little comments. How about you start with the claim that my argument is nonsense. SoWhy is my argument nonsense?

But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.

They win because they are really good at helping people? What?!? Can you expain that as well?

Winners don't win at the expense of the others? So in a competition there aren't winners and losers. How can you have a winner without a loser? This is exactly the kind of complete lack of logic that finds it's way into every one of your comments on this thread.

And for that last bit there, quoting my answer "I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone."
Where did I say I have no respect for hardwork?!? Have I not stated over and over again that I do not believe in handouts to able bodies. I said myself I am too proud to stand in an unemployment line. So why should some feed off the hardwork of others? They shouldn't.
Why do I have to repeat myself when you can just read my posts in the first place? The part about "not being willing to bear the responsibility alone" goes back to this:

ME: An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection. Money is a necessity of survival in our civilization. If you create a financial incentive NOT to help those in need than in order to compete in the market and for survival you will have to stop giving to the weak. Eventually it will become impossible to do so in order to compete for survival. These are the laws of natural selection. The nice guy cannot win.

Let me expand on that last part: "The nice guy cannot win". In natural selection(and first let me point out that you agreed that an unregulated market is natural selection) the 'nice guy' cannot exist. If one person cheats in a competition those that don't cheat will lose to the cheater, the one without moral values. That is why we have laws to prevent the morally devoid from gaining an advantage on the rest of us in society. The same people that cheat are the same people not willing to give to the weak. This gives them an advantage in natural selection. Do lions ask if they can share territory or do they kill the weaker lion, eat his children? Well they do the latter incase you didn't know.
With natural selection you cannot afford to help the weak and so there can be no 'nice guys'. Now, I am a nice guy! So while I am willing to help the weak I am not willing to to help the weak in trade for my own survival. That is my logic behind my answer. If you are not willing to present an expaination for yours than please go argue with people on youtube.

The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the animals, according to Bil's reasoning.

Yeah, you are right that is what I am saying. Keep in mind I am not the poor.

 

[thephysicsman]

Why is my argument nonsense?

Because humans differ from other animals in many ways, not only in that we force our neighbours to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail.

You could just as well use your argument to justify holocaust. "No animals gas members of their species, so if we stop gassing the Jews there'll be less to separate us from the animals". It's nonsense!

 

[WhoWee]

Depends what kind of drugs.

Illegal drugs.

 

[thephysicsman]

Note the choice pro-welfare activists give us a biased choice: 1) a welfare state with rich being forced to help the poor, or 2) freedom where nobody ever helps anybody for any reason, whatsoever.

This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" !

The best thing would be getting rid of all the government programs. Voluntary donations are more effective and the moral thing to do.

They win because they are really good at helping people? What?!? Can you expain that as well?

Sure. To succeed in the free market competition, you must constantly improve your products or services in order to offer the best value to other people. If customers can find people who are better at helping them, your business may fail.

How can you have a winner without a loser?

Because economics is not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game.

The same people that cheat are the same people not willing to give to the weak. This gives them an advantage in natural selection.

You can boycott those people, rendering them disadvantaged.

With natural selection you cannot afford to help the weak and so there can be no 'nice guys'.

Lots of very successful people help the weak.

Now, I am a nice guy! So while I am willing to help the weak I am not willing to to help the weak in trade for my own survival.

False dilemma.

Illegal drugs.

Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.

 

[russ_watters]

You are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance in the first place.

"Fortunate" implies luck, to me. Though I was lucky enough to be born with good parents, I've worked hard to earn the money I get.

And as an able bodied person you should be able to pay for this kind of thing. Not everyone can which is a problem that really is to big for this post.

Well that's the main point of the thread: an able-bodied person should be able to do these things for themselves and when they don't, that's a personal responsibility failure. Bailing such people out reinforces their conclusion that they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Ie, if poverty is comfortable, it will perpetuate itself.

What I was trying to point out is that sometimes people need things and they can't afford them and that's when SS should come in and not 'volunteer charity' (I already explained my reason for this).

Well in my opinion, they should only be allowed social benefits if they make a reasonable effort to provide for themselves and through bad luck that is no fault of their own, they can't. Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.

 

[thephysicsman]

Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.

What do you mean? A lot of people make this claim, but a closer scrutiny reveals that they respect our position just like Stalin "respected" the position of Christians in the Soviet Union. The Christians were allowed to hold their beliefs in their heads, but as soon as they tried to live out their beliefs in practice (building churches, organizing prayer meetings etc.), they were sent to jail. Is this the way you respect the position of people who believe they have the right to keep their own money?

 

[WhoWee]

Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.

This is a matter of personal responsibility and respect for the law.

If a person is injured in an industrial accident and tests positive for pot - do they put their benefits and potential damage claims at risk?

If you don't work and are 100% dependent upon the Government - it should be your personal responsibility to follow all of the laws - or risk your benefits. It's fair and I like the idea.

 

[WhoWee]

What do you mean? A lot of people make this claim, but a closer scrutiny reveals that they respect our position just like Stalin "respected" the position of Christians in the Soviet Union. The Christians were allowed to hold their beliefs in their heads, but as soon as they tried to live out their beliefs in practice (building churches, organizing prayer meetings etc.), they were sent to jail. Is this the way you respect the position of people who believe they have the right to keep their own money?

Who else thinks Russ is going to be accused of promoting socialism (as I was) in this thread? (sorry)

 

[thephysicsman]

This is a matter of personal responsibility and respect for the law.

The law is not worthy of respect in itself. The only reason one should follow illegitimate laws is to avoid anarchy.

Adults should be free to do put whatever they want in their own body. It's not the duty of the government to protect people from their own stupidity.

Who else thinks Russ is going to be accused of promoting socialism (as I was) in this thread? (sorry)

He seems to be promoting a mild form of fascism.

 

[WhoWee]

The law is not worthy of respect in itself. The only reason one should follow illegitimate laws is to avoid anarchy.

Adults should be free to do put whatever they want in their own body. It's not the duty of the government to protect people from their own stupidity.

Again, the Kentucky plan is to not pay welfare benefits to people who choose to break the law. It's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility - which is more important to you - getting high or Government benefits. The proposed Kentucky law says your need to choose. I think it's fair.

 

[WhoWee]

He's promoting a mild form of fascism.

 

[thephysicsman]

Again, the Kentucky plan is to not pay welfare benefits to people who choose to break the law. It's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility - which is more important to you - getting high or Government benefits. The proposed Kentucky law says your need to choose. I think it's fair.

I support the plan. It's not fair, but it's more fair than the current system.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

My replies in bold

Note the choice pro-welfare activists give us a biased choice: 1) a welfare state with rich being forced to help the poor, or 2) freedom where nobody ever helps anybody for any reason, whatsoever.

Is that what I said? Or was it a more complicated problem cause by the inequality between compassionate and incompassionate that you still haven't addressed?

This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" !

The best thing would be getting rid of all the government programs. Voluntary donations are more effective and the moral thing to do.

Except that you can't count on them. I will ask you again would you bet the well being of yourself or the well being of your family on volunteer donations? It is easy to say that "people can just give to charity" when you yourself are not the one in need.

Sure. To succeed in the free market competition, you must constantly improve your products or services in order to offer the best value to other people. If customers can find people who are better at helping them, your business may fail.

It is also a matter of undercutting another business through the powers of a larger investment capitol. So it is not always the case that it is because of superior quality that a product or company will excell in a free market. Also successful PR and advertisements contribute to the success of a company which again can be possible through a larger investment capitol than your competitor.

Because economics is not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game.

So if there are two competitive companies in the same market your saying that one company's profits don't translate to lower profits of the other?

You can boycott those people, rendering them disadvantaged.

This again is only an option and a possibility just as a volunteer charity is only a possible outcome. Taking the money out of taxes is a guarantee that those in need will receive what they need to survive.

Lots of very successful people help the weak.

Thats true and many successful people don't also true.

False dilemma.

Is is a very real dilemma. I challenge you to come up with an argument that proves otherwise.

Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.

Harmless is a strong word especially when it comes to people lacking motivation to get a job!. (I really don't feel like getting into this one so don't bother replying to me,anyways, I won't respond)

 

[thephysicsman]

He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

"Fortunate" implies luck, to me. Though I was lucky enough to be born with good parents, I've worked hard to earn the money I get. Well that's the main point of the thread: an able-bodied person should be able to do these things for themselves and when they don't, that's a personal responsibility failure. Bailing such people out reinforces their conclusion that they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Ie, if poverty is comfortable, it will perpetuate itself. Well in my opinion, they should only be allowed social benefits if they make a reasonable effort to provide for themselves and through bad luck that is no fault of their own, they can't. Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.

So I agree with you... The middle part confused me as to what you thought I meant there.
I have made my stance on this very clear at this point I hope!
And fortunate does imply luck. And you are fortunate to come from a good home as was I.
Not everyone is so fortunate and unforunately we are going to bear the burden created by say drug addicted abusive parents one way or another. Especially as the population density increases worldwide.

 

[WhoWee]

He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".

You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".

Do you want to give money to the poor? If so why carry this burden yourself?(please note my full argument on this problem). So Am I a Nazi now? Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?

 

[thephysicsman]

Except that you can't count on them.

Yes, you can. There have always been compassionate people, and there will always be.

would you bet the well being of yourself or the well being of your family on volunteer donations?

I would bet it on my insurance.

it is not always the case that it is because of superior quality that a product or company will excell in a free market.

Generally it is.

Also successful PR and advertisements contribute to the success of a company which again can be possible through a larger investment capitol than your competitor

PR and advertisement are very important tools of communication between producers and customers.

So if there are two competitive companies in the same market your saying that one company's profits don't translate to lower profits of the other?

I'm saying that a free market benefits everyone. Even the losing company in this case benefits a lot from the free market in all other industries. Of course, the ideal thing would be if the government granted you a monopoly in your industry, while you were allowed to enjoy the fruits of the free market in all the other industries, but that's just a pipedream.

Taking the money out of taxes is a guarantee that those in need will receive what they need to survive.

No, it's not. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Moreover, can you guarantee that the majority of the voters will always vote for these programs? No, you cannot. This is another reason why the voluntary solution is better. In a voluntary system, you only have to rely on a very few people wanting to help you. In a majority dictatorship, you have to rely on 150 million Americans wanting to help you.

You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.

Well, you can't have your cake and eat is too. If you want to force people at a gunpoint to give away their money, then you're in that camp.

 

[thephysicsman]

Do you want to give money to the poor? If so why carry this burden yourself?(please note my full argument on this problem). So Am I a Nazi now? Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?

I do donate money, but my charity is not unconditional. I set certain requirements. I do not for instance hand out money to people who are responsible for their own misery (like the people in Haiti).

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Physicsman I do want you to understand that I wish things could work the way you say they will or do. I wish that everyone could be 'good' and that people will take care of each other and that the 'free market' would only improve the quality and efficiency of our lives in it's evolution. It is simply not the case. It is idealistic. My views on this matter are taken from my observations of our current 'free market' system and from my observations of evolution, "survival of the fittest". What makes humans different. You think we as humans are so civilized by nature?

 

[thephysicsman]

Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?

No, I don't listen to that hypocrite.

 

[thephysicsman]

Physicsman I do want you to understand that I wish things could work the way you say they will or do. I wish that everyone could be 'good' and that people will take care of each other and that the 'free market' would only improve the quality and efficiency of our lives in it's evolution. It is simply not the case.

Can you PROVE this? In a civilized society, the burden of proof lies on those who advocate violence, not on those who advocate peaceful and voluntary solutions. It's a good rule of thumb to always ask yourself this question before you advocate force: "Would I be able to prove in court that violence is necessary as a last resort in this case?"

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Can I prove that all people aren't good?!? Can I prove that the free market doesn't just provide an improvement in the quality and efficiency of our lives?!? Just open your eyes.
Yeah, I think I am officially done wasting my time. I want to respond to your last round of one liners but really what is the point?

 

[thephysicsman]

Can I prove that all people aren't good?!?

In a free society you don't have to rely on all people, but just a very few. In a majority dictatorship, on the other hand, you have to rely on 150 million Americans wanting to help you. It's not hard to prove which system is more vulnerable.

History teaches us that the free market system is the only effective way to combat poverty. And this is BEFORE private charity is added to the equation. Every country that has addopted capitalism (that is, countries with sound money, private property, free trade, low taxes and little regulation of business) has become prosperous. This is no coincidence.

 

[WhoWee]

The OP asked this question:

Has poverty become too comfortable in the US. Is there adequate incentive for individuals to escape the gravity of benefits?

Regardless of how the benefits are produced - what are the incentives for a poor person to shed the benefits and establish financial independence?

 

[thephysicsman]

A right to economic goods entails a duty for others to supply those goods. This is a form of slavery.

 

[WhoWee]

A right to economic goods entails a duty for others to supply those goods. This is a form of slavery.

Again, regardless of how the benefits are provided - what is the acceptable minimum or maximum level of assistance?

 

[WhoWee]

Another perspective - is anyone actually "entitled" to cradle to grave benefits?

 

[thephysicsman]

Again, regardless of how the benefits are provided - what is the acceptable minimum or maximum level of assistance?

Every level of assistance is acceptable, as long as it is voluntary. Forced assistance (sounds like an oxymoron in my ears) is never acceptable. Why? Because economic goods (education, homes, jobs, health care, etc.) do not exist in the state of nature. They require effort and creativity to produce. Whenever someone asserts a right to an economic good, the question is: At whose expense? In effect,this person asserts a right to the products of the work of others. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave.

 

[russ_watters]

What do you mean?

I mean exactly what I say.

 

[russ_watters]

You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.

I suppose there is a point of view that holds that any government control/coercion is on a slippery-slope toward fascism. [shrug]

 

[thephysicsman]

suppose there is a point of view that holds that any government control/coercion is on a slippery-slope toward fascism.

Which it is. Violence begets violence. If you help legitimizing a system (wrongly called "democracy") where a majority can grab money from the minorities, then do not be surprised if these minorities plot together to grab back some of what they've lost. If you support a system based on the principle "everybody must join, nobody is allowed to escape", then do not be surprised if one day you suddenly have to flee the country or end up in a work camp unable to escape. If you are a fan of a system that punishes productivity, then do not be surprised if the productive ones conclude that existing as slaves for others is unbearable, and run away leaving the parasites helpless on their own. The downfall of civilization is the logical conclusion of a political system based on the initiation of force against innocent and productive people.

So my advice is to choose your actions carefully, for what you do to others tend to be the prevailing principle in society if enough people do it, and then they will do exactly the same to you. Therefore, choose your policies carefully, and do not pretend that you can avoid their consequences.

 

[WhoWee]

I suppose there is a point of view that holds that any government control/coercion is on a slippery-slope toward fascism. [shrug]

Well, considering (earlier in the thread) he thought I was promoting socialism - a little slippery-slope facism under your description isn't so bad(?)

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I've written it down in my journal (caveat: I don't have a journal): Today I was called a socialist and fascist at the same time!

To make matters worse, I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism! I don't know what's real anymore!

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, I've written it down in my journal (caveat: I don't have a journal): Today I was called a socialist and fascist at the same time!

To make matters worse, I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism! I don't know what's real anymore!

Don't feel bad - the media is confusing Obama with Reagan.

 

[WhoWee]

Back on topic - I've been trying to find a link (for a few days now) to statistics for length of time spent on the various welfare and HUD programs. If anyone knows where to find such an analysis - it could further this topic.