• 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!

What is the lowest point we are willing to accept in our society?

jhmd2000 said:
That's not accurate. Do not conflate the cause of poverty with the most reliable ways out of it. A person can fall into poverty any number of ways, through their own choices, through circumstances not of their own making, and most often, a mix. Getting out of poverty in a sustainable way compels changes in behavior. That's not demonization, that's pragmatism and math.
Click to expand...

Can you answer my question in the original post? Not with another question, not with some deflection. Just a straight answer to the original question and honestly as you can, in your own personal view. I'm not asking how you propose to reach that point (private charity, public safety net, whatever) ... just what the point is. Then we can begin to discuss how to get there. But we have to agree on the damn point we are trying to get to first.

What is the lowest point you are willing to see a non-criminal member of our society fall to, irregardless of their own personal failings?
 
I agree that we can't begin to have a conversation until a baseline is set. Say that baseline is food, shelter, and health. The question then becomes are we doing that now and is it working. I would argue that we should offer that as a bare minimum but that bare minimum should be highly regulated because the technology exists to do just that.

For shelter you are provided a place to live, this place is paid for directly by the government, with electricity and water also taken care of directly. You do not get cable, you do not get internet, you can go to the library in which a library card is provided with housing.

Health, the system is set up where you see a list of pre approved doctors. You are assigned a single doctor, only this approved doctor can write you prescriptions. Your information is flagged in the system so that if any other doctor writes a prescription they are subject to fines or loss of licensing. If out of town emergency then said doctor must consult with your pre approved doctor.

Food, no longer are you responsible for a debit card or buying what you want. Based off of age and household you will be provided with the government version of blue apron. Nutritional approved food is provided to your housing weekly. If the government is going to take care of you, you will eat your vegetables.

Transportation, i would argue in today's society you need to be able to get around. Free bus passes and other public transportation should be provided.

So now you have food, shelter, health that's highly controlled. You are cutting down on obesity, opioid use, etc... these are the bare minimum, you exist in society but you don't have Internet and TV etc... you work for those. Additionally for you to be allowed those I would propose you must hit a certain threshold. No odd jobs for 100 dollars so you can sit at home and watch cable. Sure seems like work release prison, but it's not your money and your sole focus should be improving yourself to get a job. I would also say an expansion of job training programs and the like should also go into a system like this.
 
vadimivich said:
Can you answer my question in the original post? Not with another question, not with some deflection. Just a straight answer to the original question and honestly as you can, in your own personal view. I'm not asking how you propose to reach that point (private charity, public safety net, whatever) ... just what the point is. Then we can begin to discuss how to get there. But we have to agree on the damn point we are trying to get to first.

What is the lowest point you are willing to see a non-criminal member of our society fall to, irregardless of their own personal failings?
Click to expand...

1. He won't answer.
2. The answer is clearly death, he just doesn't want to say it.
 
"What is the lowest point you are willing to see a non-criminal member of our society fall to, irregardless of their own personal failings?"

A: A dook fan.

You and I do not agree on the way out of poverty. That's fine. I believe that disagreement can be respectful, and not devolve to accusing people who disagree with me on the method of getting out of poverty of wanting other people to starve to death. Do you understand how childish and juvenile that accusation makes you all sound? Of course Doufus doesn't; and I don't expect him to. He's a walking caricature of his generation, and acts that way here on a regular basis. He's got a long and disappointing life ahead of him until he grows up. I get that, and one day he might too. Or maybe not. The latter looks more likely by the day. I hope his grandparents didn't spend it all at Wake. It's going to be a long life.

You, on the other hand, I respect. You should know better. How on Earth do you expect me to answer your loaded question? "willing". It's not deflection to reject a terrible question. I don't want anyone to starve to death, but would you like me to return the favor of asking terrible, accusatory questions: how many people are you willing to live adhered to stagnant, failing anti-poverty programs until you've decided that the pain of their multigenerational suffering finally is intolerable in comparison to you having to admit your mistake in supporting them? Really: can you answer my question, not with another question, not with some deflection. Just a straight answer to my question as honestly as you can, in your personal view.

There is no answer to your question, because it's a terrible question. Ask me something I can actually answer and we can have a real conversation.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Sounds like someone feels guilty
Click to expand...

I would feel terrible if I looked at the current system and shrugged and said, "That's good enough, I guess." What am I "willing to accept"? Not the current failed system. It's genuinely a shame to me that you guys double down on it.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I would feel terrible if I looked at the current system and shrugged and said, "That's good enough, I guess." What am I "willing to accept"? Not the current failed system. It's genuinely a shame to me that you guys double down on it.
Click to expand...

And yet you became a lawyer.
 
Strickland33 said:
And yet you became a lawyer.
Click to expand...

When someone screams and shouts at people who propose reforms, they must be "willing to accept" the status quo. At the very least, have the courage to wear it.

eta: I'm not "willing to accept" a system that teaches one subset of our society to study hard, make responsible choices with their family structure and seek employment, and another subset that, well, you're different (read: not up to that), and you're going to live by a different standard. It is not hard to detect your tolerance for those different standards.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
When someone screams and shouts at people who propose reforms, they must be "willing to accept" the status quo. At the very least, have the courage to wear it.

eta: I'm not "willing to accept" a system that teaches one subset of our society to study hard, make responsible choices with their family structure and seek employment, and another subset that, well, you're different (read: not up to that), and you're going to live by a different standard. It is not hard to detect your tolerance for those different standards.
Click to expand...

How does corporate welfare fit into this? Intergenerational wealth transfer?

"The system that teaches one subset" means nothing. How does this happen? Who is the system? How does the system do this?

On the one hand, you're speaking in undergraduate platitudes, like Paul Ryan at a frat bbq. On the other, you're speaking the same brand of ambiguous ideology-speak that cost your party the opportunity to create and implement meaningful health care reform.
 
Strickland33 said:
How does corporate welfare fit into this? Intergenerational wealth transfer?

"The system that teaches one subset" means nothing. How does this happen? Who is the system? How does the system do this?

On the one hand, you're speaking in undergraduate platitudes, like Paul Ryan at a frat bbq. On the other, you're speaking via the brand of ambiguity that cost your party the opportunity to create and implement meaningful health care reform.
Click to expand...

This isn't complicated. We have a system that enables self-destructive choices. The less stable your family (again, 100% in your control), the more benefits you receive. The more you work, the less benefits you receive. That's an undeniable aspect of the structure our current system, and the answer to the questions you asked that I have bolded. To the credit of his personal integrity and intellectual honesty (no offense to some posters), W&B has said that he's comfortable with the abuse by some so that the program is available to others, which is a compromise I can respect if not agree with.

How do we expect to close the gaps between the those with much-discussed privilege and those suffering under this broken system?
 
jhmd2000 said:
I would feel terrible if I looked at the current system and shrugged and said, "That's good enough, I guess." What am I "willing to accept"? Not the current failed system. It's genuinely a shame to me that you guys double down on it.
Click to expand...

When you say these things, who is it you think you're talking to?
 
jhmd2000 said:
I would feel terrible if I looked at the current system and shrugged and said, "That's good enough, I guess." What am I "willing to accept"? Not the current failed system. It's genuinely a shame to me that you guys double down on it.
Click to expand...

I think folks on here are all about improving the system. We just tend to see it as needing more "benefits", for lack of a better word. Better education system, more healthcare resources (especially including mental health), a living wage, and/or some form of UBI. The only way your idea of removing the carrot works is if you are willing to carry it through to its logical conclusion of allowing the potential for people to starve or die from exposure. You can stand firm in your belief in the survival instinct of humanity that that won't happen, but you must be willing to allow for the potential (and homeless folks already die from exposure). Aside from that, I really have no idea what you are suggesting as a matter of policy unless you mean compulsive marriage and/or birth control.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I think folks on here are all about improving the system. We just tend to see it as needing more "benefits", for lack of a better word. Better education system, more healthcare resources (especially including mental health), a living wage, and/or some form of UBI. The only way your idea of removing the carrot works is if you are willing to carry it through to its logical conclusion of allowing the potential for people to starve or die from exposure. You can stand firm in your belief in the survival instinct of humanity that that won't happen, but you must be willing to allow for the potential (and homeless folks already die from exposure). Aside from that, I really have no idea what you are suggesting as a matter of policy unless you mean compulsive marriage and/or birth control.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that our current system subsidizes harmful choices?
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I agree that we can't begin to have a conversation until a baseline is set. Say that baseline is food, shelter, and health. The question then becomes are we doing that now and is it working. I would argue that we should offer that as a bare minimum but that bare minimum should be highly regulated because the technology exists to do just that.

For shelter you are provided a place to live, this place is paid for directly by the government, with electricity and water also taken care of directly. You do not get cable, you do not get internet, you can go to the library in which a library card is provided with housing.

Health, the system is set up where you see a list of pre approved doctors. You are assigned a single doctor, only this approved doctor can write you prescriptions. Your information is flagged in the system so that if any other doctor writes a prescription they are subject to fines or loss of licensing. If out of town emergency then said doctor must consult with your pre approved doctor.

Food, no longer are you responsible for a debit card or buying what you want. Based off of age and household you will be provided with the government version of blue apron. Nutritional approved food is provided to your housing weekly. If the government is going to take care of you, you will eat your vegetables.

Transportation, i would argue in today's society you need to be able to get around. Free bus passes and other public transportation should be provided.

So now you have food, shelter, health that's highly controlled. You are cutting down on obesity, opioid use, etc... these are the bare minimum, you exist in society but you don't have Internet and TV etc... you work for those. Additionally for you to be allowed those I would propose you must hit a certain threshold. No odd jobs for 100 dollars so you can sit at home and watch cable. Sure seems like work release prison, but it's not your money and your sole focus should be improving yourself to get a job. I would also say an expansion of job training programs and the like should also go into a system like this.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent post. I may disagree somewhat with the healthcare section (primarily fining of physicians as you could limit the patient to only certain pre approved medications) but this is truly an excellent post.
 
jhmd2000 said:
This isn't complicated. We have a system that enables self-destructive choices. The less stable your family (again, 100% in your control), the more benefits you receive. The more you work, the less benefits you receive. That's an undeniable aspect of the structure our current system, and the answer to the questions you asked that I have bolded. To the credit of his personal integrity and intellectual honesty (no offense to some posters), W&B has said that he's comfortable with the abuse by some so that the program is available to others, which is a compromise I can respect if not agree with.

How do we expect to close the gaps between the those with much-discussed privilege and those suffering under this broken system?
Click to expand...

What do you think about guaranteed basic income programs? Very popular w/ economists due to superior efficiency to current welfare/social programs. Too early for it now (and maybe in our lives) but that feels like the long-term solution in 50-100 years or whatever when employment levels are extremely low from automation.
 
jhmd2000 said:
"What is the lowest point you are willing to see a non-criminal member of our society fall to, irregardless of their own personal failings?"

A: A dook fan.

You and I do not agree on the way out of poverty. That's fine. I believe that disagreement can be respectful, and not devolve to accusing people who disagree with me on the method of getting out of poverty of wanting other people to starve to death. Do you understand how childish and juvenile that accusation makes you all sound? Of course Doufus doesn't; and I don't expect him to. He's a walking caricature of his generation, and acts that way here on a regular basis. He's got a long and disappointing life ahead of him until he grows up. I get that, and one day he might too. Or maybe not. The latter looks more likely by the day. I hope his grandparents didn't spend it all at Wake. It's going to be a long life.

You, on the other hand, I respect. You should know better. How on Earth do you expect me to answer your loaded question? "willing". It's not deflection to reject a terrible question. I don't want anyone to starve to death, but would you like me to return the favor of asking terrible, accusatory questions: how many people are you willing to live adhered to stagnant, failing anti-poverty programs until you've decided that the pain of their multigenerational suffering finally is intolerable in comparison to you having to admit your mistake in supporting them? Really: can you answer my question, not with another question, not with some deflection. Just a straight answer to my question as honestly as you can, in your personal view.

There is no answer to your question, because it's a terrible question. Ask me something I can actually answer and we can have a real conversation.
Click to expand...

this post reminds me why I quit the tunnels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top