• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Specific problems with specific welfare programs and how to fix them

jhmd2000 said:
Given that 1 & 2 aren't close to our current policy, and point #3 is a provable fact (note carefully that arguing provable facts is apparently frowned upon....a curious development if ever there was one), is it a fair characterization of our current system when critics decry high income earners as not paying their "fair share"? If any argument that they shouldn't pay even more is deemed solely out of self-interest, then do the people paying for the system not even have standing to argue what their "fair share" should be? Could you think of a more totalitarian notion than that?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes I can. A veritable army of bureaucrats given the power to determine, on a case by case basis involving intrusive examinations into the lives and privacy of citizens, which citizens are deserving of the right to receive the right to survive above a basic subsistence level, based on the individual bureaucrat's determination of how hard that family is working. Wait.... I've heard that idea before:

jhmd2000 said:
In terms of specifics, a system that cares about the people it is supposed to help would not send "A" amount of aid blindly. It would have a case manager that would get to know the people on the receiving end of the aid, and establish conditions that would help the recipient improve their prospects of getting off of that aid. Sure, no one should starve, but to continue to remain eligible for the hedge against falling through the cracks, there should be some expectation (which can and should be tweaked on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether or not THIS single mother could run an at-home daycare, or whether or not she should do something else that would help bring in a little income but more importantly re-build the bridge back into the workforce in some capacity). Frankly, the more a person does for themselves, the better their aid should be. I can't imagine anyone arguing with that, unless you truly don't believe the person is capable of providing for themselves in any way (which I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to say outloud).
Click to expand...
 
I disagree with the notion of making people do "volunteer work" to receive public benefits, especially when that work is useless make work.

I fully believe in the notion of the government creating actual jobs with actual payrolls to do useful things our country needs, like build infrastructure, to provide employment when the private sector refuses or is unable to do so.

There is a significant difference between the two. One is insulting and degrading and shaming, and disrespectful of the dignity of the human beings involved. The other is uplifting and creates self-worth and inculcates valuable habits that last a lifetime.
 
Deacon923 said:
I disagree with the notion of making people do "volunteer work" to receive public benefits, especially when that work is useless make work.

I fully believe in the notion of the government creating actual jobs with actual payrolls to do useful things our country needs, like build infrastructure, to provide employment when the private sector refuses or is unable to do so.

There is a significant difference between the two. One is insulting and degrading and shaming, and disrespectful of the dignity of the human beings involved. The other is uplifting and creates self-worth and inculcates valuable habits that last a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Forcing someone else's family to fork over their paycheck to you is uplifting and creates self-worth. This valuable habit, once inculcated, often lasts a lifetime.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Forcing someone else's family to fork over their paycheck to you is uplifting and creates self-worth. This valuable habit, once inculcated, often lasts a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Ask the guys who built the Hoover Dam, or my grandfather who worked for the WPA and the Civilian Conservation Corps, whether they thought they were "forcing someone else's family to fork over their paycheck". Those guys were damn proud of the hard work they did and that work continues to pay dividends to our country today. As I said either on another thread or many pages ago here, that's the kind of thing the stimulus bills should have done.
 
Deacon923 said:
Ask the guys who built the Hoover Dam, or my grandfather who worked for the WPA and the Civilian Conservation Corps, whether they thought they were "forcing someone else's family to fork over their paycheck". Those guys were damn proud of the hard work they did and that work continues to pay dividends to our country today. As I said either on another thread or many pages ago here, that's the kind of thing the stimulus bills should have done.
Click to expand...

Ask the families whose earnings were taken to build the Hoover Dam or to pay for We Piddle Around whether they thought they were forced to hand over their paychecks. Those families were damn proud of their hard work too and their work could have been earning them dividends today if greedy .govs hadnot taken it by force to buy votes.
 
So the argument here is that taxpayer money shouldn't have gone to build the Hoover Dam.
 
the invisible hand would have dammed the river and powered Vegas if the .gov apparatchiks hadn't gone and done it to hold down the blacks
 
Deacon923 said:
I disagree with the notion of making people do "volunteer work" to receive public benefits, especially when that work is useless make work.

I fully believe in the notion of the government creating actual jobs with actual payrolls to do useful things our country needs, like build infrastructure, to provide employment when the private sector refuses or is unable to do so.

There is a significant difference between the two. One is insulting and degrading and shaming, and disrespectful of the dignity of the human beings involved. The other is uplifting and creates self-worth and inculcates valuable habits that last a lifetime.
Click to expand...

What should the taxpayer's expectation be for someone who is asking for its financial assistance over an extended period of time? None whatsoever? Are you in favor of drug testing for persons on public benefits? Could you see why some would object to that?

I'm not sure what is more insulting and degrading than telling someone that their contribution isn't needed.
 
jhmd2000 said:
What should the taxpayer's expectation be for someone who is asking for its financial assistance over an extended period of time? None whatsoever? Are you in favor of drug testing for persons on public benefits? Could you see why some would object to that?

I'm not sure what is more insulting and degrading than telling someone that their contribution isn't needed.
Click to expand...

Providing assistance equals telling someone they're worthless. Nice.
 
WFFaithful said:
Providing assistance equals telling someone they're worthless. Nice.
Click to expand...

No, please read it again, this time for understanding. I've said repeatedly that giving aid and not valuing what the person can contribute sends the message that they don't have value. That's the wrong message.

My kingdom for a sincere reader with a dissenting point of view...
 
923 is talking about how people can contribute infrastructure. Valuable infrastructure.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
If you want to pay for that person to go to school for social work so that they are qualified to work as a case worker, then sure
Click to expand...

Seriously? Managing a case, having responsibilities, working with other people, time management, the inevitable paperwork and numbers work the evolves from a normal work schedule .... There are plenty of job skills to be learned by being a case worker. Stop being such a jerk. You don't have to be a software engineer to gain usable skills. Just the act of waking up at 6am and going to work is a usable skill.
 
You responded to something BBD didn't say.
 
Wrangor said:
Seriously? Managing a case, having responsibilities, working with other people, time management, the inevitable paperwork and numbers work the evolves from a normal work schedule .... There are plenty of job skills to be learned by being a case worker. Stop being such a jerk. You don't have to be a software engineer to gain usable skills. Just the act of waking up at 6am and going to work is a usable skill.
Click to expand...

What?

Social work isn't something people should learn on the job. You should hire someone who is actually qualified to do the job.
 
This may be a massive over-generalization, but I feel like most people who are doing social work at a high level have a masters in social work. Now I don't know if it's absolutely necessary, but it's definitely a huge help.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
What?

Social work isn't something people should learn on the job. You should hire someone who is actually qualified to do the job.
Click to expand...

You can learn most skills on the job in any profession. I learned how to coach on the job, I learned how to farm on the job. My guess is that a large percentage of wake grads learned how to do their job while working On it.

You allow the social workers to advance up the food chain as they gain experience. First do the work on the ground, gain experience, advance. Pretty simple concept. Same thing on infrastructure jobs. You don't hire the inexperienced to be the foreman, you hire him to dig ditches, after digging ditches you give him a shot at pouring concrete, after that you let him manage a small job and see how he does. Same thing could be done for social work projects. Incremental growth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top