Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MagnetoSound]

If you read my post again, I said *unable* to work.

You still assume that, in all cases, this 'loafing on the couch' is a voluntary exercise.


What about the incapacitated - those suffering from disability, depression, asthma - the kind of things not covered by health insurance, or suffered by those who cannot afford it - or just poor employability?

I agree that there is an indolent element in society, but not that all recipients of welfare fall into that category. You have to be something of a fascist in order to make that leap.

Now, I understand that your attitude makes the problem easier to deal with, but the way I see it, this kind of blanket intolerance is itself a problem in our society today.

No offense, but life is just not that easy.

[Eric H.]

MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 07:16

If you read my post again, I said *unable* to work. You still assume that, in all cases, this 'loafing on the couch' is a voluntary exercise. What about the incapacitated - those suffering from disability, depression, asthma - the kind of things not covered by health insurance, or suffered by those who cannot afford it - or just poor employability? I agree that there is an indolent element in society, but not that all recipients of welfare fall into that category. You have to be something of a fascist in order to make that leap. Now, I understand that your attitude makes the problem easier to deal with, but the way I see it, this kind of blanket intolerance is itself a problem in our society today. No offense, but life is just not that easy.

+1

[Jon Hodgson]

MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 07:16

If you read my post again, I said *unable* to work. You still assume that, in all cases, this 'loafing on the couch' is a voluntary exercise. What about the incapacitated - those suffering from disability, depression, asthma - the kind of things not covered by health insurance, or suffered by those who cannot afford it - or just poor employability? I agree that there is an indolent element in society, but not that all recipients of welfare fall into that category. You have to be something of a fascist in order to make that leap. Now, I understand that your attitude makes the problem easier to deal with, but the way I see it, this kind of blanket intolerance is itself a problem in our society today. No offense, but life is just not that easy.

On the other hand, whatever the situation is that put an individual in the position of not being able to support themselves and needing help to do so, do they have the right to increase the burden on those helping them by choosing to have children?

If they were not getting benefits, then it is most probably that they would avoid having new children, so do you feel that aswell as providing them with food and shelter, the benefit system should effecively provide the with that option?

With anything else you can say, "sure you can have one of those if you want, but you'll not get any more money for it", the problem with children is that once they're in the world society can't morally turn its back on them, which means supporting the parents.

[MDM,]

you can't blame somebody who tries to make a living but they can't because they come from the wrong family..

but the loophole is that this separation of classes and wiping out of the middle-class is due to spending of borrowed money as well as by playing with the value of currency, borrowing ad infinitum, reserve banking etc. ...and welfare

[MagnetoSound]

Max, I do not see this 'wiping out of the middle class' at all.

I see the middle class spreading DOWNWARD, due as you say to the dependence on credit - necessitated by critically low pay - and what once was the WORKING CLASS being made into an minority UNDERCLASS by rising unemployment and even LOWER pay.

On top of that we can see a growing upper class of greedy bankers, lottery winners and the like - and even a super class of global bankers and investors who simply CANNOT LOSE, because they OWN the banking system itself, and are BAILED OUT by the taxpayer when it all gets too unstable!

A total stretching of the differential in both directions!


Where once upon a time we perceived a lack of economic differential in society, we now see WAY too much.

[MagnetoSound]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 11:24

On the other hand, whatever the situation is that put an individual in the position of not being able to support themselves and needing help to do so, do they have the right to increase the burden on those helping them by choosing to have children?

Jon, once you deny the underprivileged the right to procreate, that is EXACTLY eugenic control, which is the trademark of a fascist society.

We would all like to pay less tax, I know - but the just response cannot be to put pressure on those at the very bottom of the pile in such inhumane fashion, when there are those at the very top of the pile who are, frankly, obscenely unaccountable to the taxman and who would be, if that pressure were to result in abortion, quite literally getting away with murder!

[danickstr]

MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 11:19

Jon, once you deny the underprivileged the right to procreate, that is EXACTLY eugenic control, which is the trademark of a fascist society.

No one is being denied the right to procreate.  They are choosing to take money from the state, whereas they could also choose to work.  If you can sire or birth a child, please tell me in what universe would you be unable to do some sort of job.  It may not be the job you trained for, but if you are planning to parent a child, you must have enough mental (and physical) resources to handle the day to day tasks of dealing with the treacheries of a young mind.  

I cannot see how anyone is capable of child-rearing and not doing some simple job.

Fascism is not at all involved, since fascism has to do with selective breeding without choice. There is an obvious choice here, so let's not sensationalize the argument.

I do agree with you about taxing the rich at the same rate as income tax.  All for that.  I just don't like to see people pump out kiddies to get a bigger check, since that is the much higher percentage abuse of welfare than would be the rare example of someone who 'really wants to work" and is able-bodied enough to have kids, but is uniquely unable to find any type of job whatsoever.

[Jon Hodgson]

MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 16:19

Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 11:24 On the other hand, whatever the situation is that put an individual in the position of not being able to support themselves and needing help to do so, do they have the right to increase the burden on those helping them by choosing to have children? Jon, once you deny the underprivileged the right to procreate, that is EXACTLY eugenic control, which is the trademark of a fascist society. We would all like to pay less tax, I know - but the just response cannot be to put pressure on those at the very bottom of the pile in such inhumane fashion, when there are those at the very top of the pile who are, frankly, obscenely unaccountable to the taxman and who would be, if that pressure were to result in abortion, quite literally getting away with murder!

Nobody's denying them the right to procreate. The question I'm asking is whether it is reasonable for the "contract" between society and those on wellfare to be "we'll help you, but in return you have to agree to not make the situation worse, which means not having any more children till you're able to look after them".

It is their right to have children if they want to, but is it their right to expect financial support if they make the choice to have a baby they can't afford to look after?

[MagnetoSound]

You're both making really valid points there, guys.

It is a REALLY difficult issue, and I think it's safe to say that nobody has all the answers - so much depends on your point of view.


I think the point I'm really making is that the poor are always scapegoated as being the scourge of society for living on benefits - regardless of the fact that a lot more money is finding it's way UP the social ladder all the time, by way of unreasonable  food and fuel prices, unearned bonuses, the manipulated growth in house prices, forced borrowing and so on.

And although, as I said earlier, there is certainly an indolent element which can not be morally encouraged, it is a little disingenuous to imply that it is a simple matter to free oneself from poverty as easily as is being suggested.



Also, the word 'welfare' can mean several things:


In the UK, there used to be a thing called Supplementary Benefit - now called Tax Credit (how's that for Newspeak?) - which is basically a top up for those on low incomes, whether it be from low paid jobs, part-time work, self-employment or whatever.

These people are not reluctant to work. Nor are they incapacitated in any way, other than being forced to live on an unreasonably low wage in an ecomony where the cost of living is going through the roof.

What about them? Should they be allowed to have babies, even though they are in receipt of 'welfare'?

As I say, it's a very difficult issue, and very hard to come up with a blanket policy that can be summed up in a few words, and that can be fair to everyone.



I think my basic problem is with the mindset - the one that says that only people that can do well for themselves should have kids.


It seems to me that parenthood is a basic human right - regardless of your status in life.



Dan

[danickstr]

Dan I agree that the "burden" of the poor is often the focus of undue criticism, partly because the rich machine is better at distraction than self-criticism.

Also, the reality of a "sterilization bill" ever making its way to capitol hill has to be extremely remote, and the myriad of issues, such as a reaction that permanently damages someone's reproductive organs, etc, would make it impossible to pass, IMO.  But to me it is shameful to add to the public burden if you cannot support the children.

It is also shameful to hoard billions of dollars while others are starving, so who is really the bigger criminal, I can't say.  But throwing billions of dollars at the starving masses will only give you tens of billions of starving in 20 years, so that is not a solution either.

I feel confident that we will not solve the worlds problems here, but at least we can chat about them.  

I thought the check with the sterilization powder sprinkled on it was funny. (credit to wavdoctor)

(as to what the Gates foundation has planned for the third world, I would never venture to guess...)

[MagnetoSound]

danickstr wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 01:09

I thought the check with the sterilization powder sprinkled on it was funny.

Well yeah, I guess if you meant it that way, then it was.

[MDM,]

MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 10:08

Max, I do not see this 'wiping out of the middle class' at all. I see the middle class spreading DOWNWARD, due as you say to the dependence on credit - necessitated by critically low pay - and what once was the WORKING CLASS being made into an minority UNDERCLASS by rising unemployment and even LOWER pay. On top of that we can see a growing upper class of greedy bankers, lottery winners and the like - and even a super class of global bankers and investors who simply CANNOT LOSE, because they OWN the banking system itself, and are BAILED OUT by the taxpayer when it all gets too unstable! A total stretching of the differential in both directions! Where once upon a time we perceived a lack of economic differential in society, we now see WAY too much.

you say you don't see it but you've just described the process.

now project 10-20 years and see where that leads.

[MDM,]

you know there's a lot to be learned regarding this issue by studying british history (pre wars).

the ownership of labour through inflation was something applied in England I think, as an alternative to slavery.. which was also a great british interest..

great country though, love it.