To add, Scandinavian countries have managed to maintain a welfare state while continually experiencing healthy economic growth.
They also have some of the highest living standards in the world and are proof it’s possible to have social equality without stifling entrepreneurialism and economic growth.
Perhaps in the US transfer payments have mostly adverse effects but that simply isn’t the case in several other countries.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I didn’t mean that working is a shameful act, just that the psychological negative incentive of having to do community service because you need assistance COULD be a deterrent…that is, if it’s determined that more people abuse the system than not. It works.[/quote]
Is it shameful I have to have a job to get fed.
If we are going to pay these people might as well put them to work, probably a good motivator to find a real job too. Plus it could build up work experience.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I didn’t mean that working is a shameful act, just that the psychological negative incentive of having to do community service because you need assistance COULD be a deterrent…that is, if it’s determined that more people abuse the system than not. It works.[/quote]
Is it shameful I have to have a job to get fed.
If we are going to pay these people might as well put them to work, probably a good motivator to find a real job too. Plus it could build up work experience.[/quote]
You are taking my post out of context. I don’t mean it’s shameful to have to work, I mean to create some sort of negative incentive for requiring government assistance, to discourage people from just camping out at that level and leeching off the govt.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I didn’t mean that working is a shameful act, just that the psychological negative incentive of having to do community service because you need assistance COULD be a deterrent…that is, if it’s determined that more people abuse the system than not. It works.[/quote]
Is it shameful I have to have a job to get fed.
If we are going to pay these people might as well put them to work, probably a good motivator to find a real job too. Plus it could build up work experience.[/quote]
You are taking my post out of context. I don’t mean it’s shameful to have to work, I mean to create some sort of negative incentive for requiring government assistance, to discourage people from just camping out at that level and leeching off the govt.[/quote]
That is what they need, a swift kick in the ass to get back to work. Make sure it is a very shitty job they have to do while on welfare. Want to take taxpayers money fine, but be prepared to work your ass off for it.
Welfare is a safety net, not a way of life.(Don’t want to go all pwi on this and explain why I don’t like safety nets and all that but I think within what this country is willing to with making them work is the best idea).
DBCooper, I would just like to say that I have read this thread completely from start to finish and I completely agree with your logic and rationale. We would be a more wealthy and more intelligent, more inherently valuable society if more people subscribed to this realm of thought.
I am also disturbingly reminded of having to explain why printing more money wouldn’t alleviate the financial woes of a woman speaking fluent ebonics while pumping fuel into my car at a gas station in the hood.
[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
DBCooper, I would just like to say that I have read this thread completely from start to finish and I completely agree with your logic and rationale. We would be a more wealthy and more intelligent, more inherently valuable society if more people subscribed to this realm of thought.
I am also disturbingly reminded of having to explain why printing more money wouldn’t alleviate the financial woes of a woman speaking fluent ebonics while pumping fuel into my car at a gas station in the hood.[/quote]
I have to explain this to people in my school.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
DBCooper, I would just like to say that I have read this thread completely from start to finish and I completely agree with your logic and rationale. We would be a more wealthy and more intelligent, more inherently valuable society if more people subscribed to this realm of thought.
I am also disturbingly reminded of having to explain why printing more money wouldn’t alleviate the financial woes of a woman speaking fluent ebonics while pumping fuel into my car at a gas station in the hood.[/quote]
I have to explain this to people in my school.[/quote]
The worst part about that whole event was that she came at me from two pumps over, and the two people in between her and I stopped what they were doing and listened and were asking questions, obviously just as clueless as she was.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]wilks19 wrote:
DBCooper look up epigentics and tell me it is not this womens fault she is fat, if you don’t feel like looking it up, essential it is your genes don’t dictate what you are. they are just a blue print of everything that u can be and are expressed due to enivromental stress/signals( gorging on food, watching her probably fat parents do whatever they did and copying) so as of the point her getting fat it is possibly not her fault for getting fat assuming her parents were, but to say there is a fat gene that that will prevent her from being skinny is in my opinion absured. change her beliefs instill some work ethic and the human body is capable of some amazing things, but most people seem to have forgotten that fact… *didnt read past 1st half page may have missed someone sayin somethin along this line.[/quote]
Read past the first half page. Then relearn how to type in a manner that someone with command of the English language can comprehend. Then return to this thread.[/quote]
weak arugement to deny logic, there was one part that was gumbled up but its the internet not an essay get over it ya dust pan, and i saw two people mention enivromental stressors affecting gene expression, both of which you did not comment on. so maybe learn more about why genes work the way they do. come back to this thread then and an intelligent disscussion can be had.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.[/quote]
SSC I know this was like 4-5 pages back, however I do want to say that this is not about truly disabled people, I have a child with Downs. This is about people who “steal” yes it is stealing to take advantage of a system due to your own laziness.
As a society we need to protect and help the weak, our children and elderly are the least taken care of in our country. Is it just for a child to starve while a full grown man gets paid cause he smoked crack and had a bad trip?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Silo101 wrote:
DB your previous posts mislead me with regards to your opinion but that doesn’t mean my last post was not justified, It adresses your previous arguments, all of which seemed to use the comparison to the bike accident as a defense for obese people getting disability. You probably should have made your opinion clearer earlier on. [/quote]
Also, I just reread through my “previous posts” and I seriously don’t know how you could have missed my point or my opinion in any of them. Sure, they’re long as shit and all that, but if you took the time to read through them all it’s not like I’m speaking gibberish and calling it an opinion. It’s pretty clear what I’m saying. And if you didn’t read through the entirety of each and every one of them then you’re a jackass for criticizing me for not being clear enough.[/quote]
Yea I read your posts and basically the entirety of our argument stemmed from your dumbass motorcycle example. My posts were all to show you the difference between the two and explain why disability should go to the one and not the other. And yes, the argument here is whether or not obese people should get disability. Should being the operative word. Not whether or not it is realistic to take it away from them because of litigation costs.
I still believe there are many conditions and situations that deserve disability aid. To say that no one should get aid is just taking the easy way out to save yourself from having to make differentiations between the deserving and the undeserving. Even you have to admit there are cases where people deffinitely deserve aid. As for the economic POV that any gov aid is detrimentally to the economy… Yes theoretically it is. But that’s the difference between pure theory and actual economies. There are millions of policies that stand in the way of a perfect economy due to gov intervention… Rent ceilings, farming subsidies etc…
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Well, as stated earlier, without these programs in place there is actually more wealth being generated because now it isn’t simply being transferred to the disabled. This increase in wealth continues to fuel enough economic growth where wages and earning power and dollar-purchasing power are all high enough to support the disabled without any of these programs in place.
[/quote]
Yes transfer payments can be a drain on the economy.
But how on earth will an increase in wages and PPP help someone unable to work? In order for someone to benefit they have to garner a wage in the first place.
[/quote]
If they’re unable to work then they need to rely on the kindness of strangers via homeless shelters, soup kitchens, privately-established social services and so forth. If they can’t work where does it become equitable for the govt to plunge ALL of us into a worse-off economy just so that those who are unable to work (many of whom become that way due to their own intransigence) can benefit? It doesn’t make sense. Perhaps the increase in income will allow their families to take care of them. It is their responsibility to care for them more than it is the country’s collective responsibility.
I will say this though. It sounds overly idealistic to assume that the private sector will automatically pick up the slack for these people and that’s because it is. So I also support some sort of massive taxbreak for anyone who spends more than a given amount of time working directly, face-to-face, with the disabled.
You see, the real problem here is actually none of what I’ve mentioned so far. The root cause of all this is that people don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Remove the govt-funded social services now and most disabled people are fucked permanently because people won’t care about them. This is wrong. I feel that the only way to remedy this situation is to provide incentives. One of the ten principles of economics is that people respond to incentives, and in this case a tax cut would be the incentive. I also feel that as people work more and more with the disabled to gain a tax break, the more they’ll grow to actually enjoy working with them regardless of incentives. Over time, I truly feel that this will help build a stronger sense of community amongst Americans and this can only be good for the country.
[quote]Silo101 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Silo101 wrote:
DB your previous posts mislead me with regards to your opinion but that doesn’t mean my last post was not justified, It adresses your previous arguments, all of which seemed to use the comparison to the bike accident as a defense for obese people getting disability. You probably should have made your opinion clearer earlier on. [/quote]
Also, I just reread through my “previous posts” and I seriously don’t know how you could have missed my point or my opinion in any of them. Sure, they’re long as shit and all that, but if you took the time to read through them all it’s not like I’m speaking gibberish and calling it an opinion. It’s pretty clear what I’m saying. And if you didn’t read through the entirety of each and every one of them then you’re a jackass for criticizing me for not being clear enough.[/quote]
Yea I read your posts and basically the entirety of our argument stemmed from your dumbass motorcycle example. My posts were all to show you the difference between the two and explain why disability should go to the one and not the other. And yes, the argument here is whether or not obese people should get disability. Should being the operative word. Not whether or not it is realistic to take it away from them because of litigation costs.
I still believe there are many conditions and situations that deserve disability aid. To say that no one should get aid is just taking the easy way out to save yourself from having to make differentiations between the deserving and the undeserving. Even you have to admit there are cases where people deffinitely deserve aid. As for the economic POV that any gov aid is detrimentally to the economy… Yes theoretically it is. But that’s the difference between pure theory and actual economies. There are millions of policies that stand in the way of a perfect economy due to gov intervention… Rent ceilings, farming subsidies etc…[/quote]
And I’ve already mentioned ceilings, subsidies and so forth. Of course a massive economic change like removing all govt-funded social services can’t happen overnight and all by itself for it to work. It’s a slow process, but the EMPIRICAL evidence shows that from a pure economic standpoint they don’t make any sense at all.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
To add, Scandinavian countries have managed to maintain a welfare state while continually experiencing healthy economic growth.
They also have some of the highest living standards in the world and are proof it’s possible to have social equality without stifling entrepreneurialism and economic growth.
Perhaps in the US transfer payments have mostly adverse effects but that simply isn’t the case in several other countries.
[/quote]
They have social equality in Scandinavia (I doubt they actually do, but for the sake of argument I’ll accept that) because everyone’s white. They have social equality because everyone pays the same huge amount of taxes in order to keep running a system that they won’t all use equally. The 45 y/o person who just had a triple bypass paid the same into that system as the 45 y/o who’s lived healthy his whole life and has never had so much as a cold. Is that social equality? No.
Also, like I said, they pay a massive amount of their income in taxes, like 80% or more. America will NEVER allow that to happen. We were founded on the basis of limited taxation, the anti-tax sentiment in this country runs too deep and for too long for any comparison of us to Scandinavia to be relevant. And let’s be honest, their standard of living is high, but their wealth and the size of their economy is miniscule compared to the U.S. so they are hardly a standard that the U.S. is trying to live up to.
[quote]wilks19 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]wilks19 wrote:
DBCooper look up epigentics and tell me it is not this womens fault she is fat, if you don’t feel like looking it up, essential it is your genes don’t dictate what you are. they are just a blue print of everything that u can be and are expressed due to enivromental stress/signals( gorging on food, watching her probably fat parents do whatever they did and copying) so as of the point her getting fat it is possibly not her fault for getting fat assuming her parents were, but to say there is a fat gene that that will prevent her from being skinny is in my opinion absured. change her beliefs instill some work ethic and the human body is capable of some amazing things, but most people seem to have forgotten that fact… *didnt read past 1st half page may have missed someone sayin somethin along this line.[/quote]
Read past the first half page. Then relearn how to type in a manner that someone with command of the English language can comprehend. Then return to this thread.[/quote]
weak arugement to deny logic, there was one part that was gumbled up but its the internet not an essay get over it ya dust pan, and i saw two people mention enivromental stressors affecting gene expression, both of which you did not comment on. so maybe learn more about why genes work the way they do. come back to this thread then and an intelligent disscussion can be had.
[/quote]
My understanding is that epigenetics is mostly responsible for disorders in human beings. Being fat is a lot of things but it isn’t a disorder. Also, from what little I know about it I was under the impression that things like obesity, if epigenetics is even responsible for it in the first place, is the result of previous generation’s lifestyles, hence it is a hereditary thing and uncontrollable to an extent for the person who is fat now.
But this isn’t the point. The point is that we don’t know why this person is fat. You don’t. I don’t. So if you think I’m going to further degenerate this thread by engaging in some asinine argument with you about something neither of us know the answer to then you’re senile.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If they’re unable to work then they need to rely on the kindness of strangers via homeless shelters, soup kitchens, privately-established social services and so forth. If they can’t work where does it become equitable for the govt to plunge ALL of us into a worse-off economy just so that those who are unable to work (many of whom become that way due to their own intransigence) can benefit? It doesn’t make sense. Perhaps the increase in income will allow their families to take care of them. It is their responsibility to care for them more than it is the country’s collective responsibility.
[/quote]
This is definitely where you (and many other Americans) differ in opinion with the rest of world’s industrialized nations.
Except for a tonsillectomy I have rarely used Canada’s Universal Health Care system. Barring any unforeseen events, the lifestyle I currently live, I doubt I will use it very often until I am old and brittle.
But this does not mean I am against UHC or paying for those who are chronically sick or even responsible for their own sickness.
I am okay with paying for treatment for smokers who have developed emphysema
I am okay with paying for abortions (not just pregnancies that are a result of rape)
I acknowledge that there are people who will cheat the system, but I know that transfer payments paying for disability and UHC are for the greater good of society. I believe this is general consensus amongst most Canadians. Canada’s life expectancy is ranked 11th in the world while the United States is 35th.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
To add, Scandinavian countries have managed to maintain a welfare state while continually experiencing healthy economic growth.
They also have some of the highest living standards in the world and are proof it’s possible to have social equality without stifling entrepreneurialism and economic growth.
Perhaps in the US transfer payments have mostly adverse effects but that simply isn’t the case in several other countries.
[/quote]
They have social equality in Scandinavia (I doubt they actually do, but for the sake of argument I’ll accept that) because everyone’s white. They have social equality because everyone pays the same huge amount of taxes in order to keep running a system that they won’t all use equally. The 45 y/o person who just had a triple bypass paid the same into that system as the 45 y/o who’s lived healthy his whole life and has never had so much as a cold. Is that social equality? No.
Also, like I said, they pay a massive amount of their income in taxes, like 80% or more. America will NEVER allow that to happen. We were founded on the basis of limited taxation, the anti-tax sentiment in this country runs too deep and for too long for any comparison of us to Scandinavia to be relevant. And let’s be honest, their standard of living is high, but their wealth and the size of their economy is miniscule compared to the U.S. so they are hardly a standard that the U.S. is trying to live up to.[/quote]
I know it will never happen, I’m just saying transfer payments DO work if used correctly.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If they’re unable to work then they need to rely on the kindness of strangers via homeless shelters, soup kitchens, privately-established social services and so forth. If they can’t work where does it become equitable for the govt to plunge ALL of us into a worse-off economy just so that those who are unable to work (many of whom become that way due to their own intransigence) can benefit? It doesn’t make sense. Perhaps the increase in income will allow their families to take care of them. It is their responsibility to care for them more than it is the country’s collective responsibility.
[/quote]
This is definitely where you (and many other Americans) differ in opinion with the rest of world’s industrialized nations.
Except for a tonsillectomy I have rarely used Canada’s Universal Health Care system. Barring any unforeseen events, the lifestyle I currently live, I doubt I will use it very often until I am old and brittle.
But this does not mean I am against UHC or paying for those who are chronically sick or even responsible for their own sickness.
I am okay with paying for treatment for smokers who have developed emphysema
I am okay with paying for abortions (not just pregnancies that are a result of rape)
I acknowledge that there are people who will cheat the system, but I know that transfer payments paying for disability and UHC are for the greater good of society. I believe this is general consensus amongst most Canadians. Canada’s life expectancy is ranked 11th in the world while the United States is 35th.
[/quote]
I have worked with many, many nurses and doctors from Canada that would not agree with you.
Lol at you people misrepresenting Scandinavia.
Scandinavia is fucked up. Sweden is actually pretty poor and according to some 2008 figures, if Sweden was a state in the US it would be one of the ten poorest. Norway is rich because they have lots of oil so that lets them get away with blatant socialism, just like the Arabic countries get away with tyranny. And no one cares about Denmark.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If they’re unable to work then they need to rely on the kindness of strangers via homeless shelters, soup kitchens, privately-established social services and so forth. If they can’t work where does it become equitable for the govt to plunge ALL of us into a worse-off economy just so that those who are unable to work (many of whom become that way due to their own intransigence) can benefit? It doesn’t make sense. Perhaps the increase in income will allow their families to take care of them. It is their responsibility to care for them more than it is the country’s collective responsibility.
[/quote]
This is definitely where you (and many other Americans) differ in opinion with the rest of world’s industrialized nations.
Except for a tonsillectomy I have rarely used Canada’s Universal Health Care system. Barring any unforeseen events, the lifestyle I currently live, I doubt I will use it very often until I am old and brittle.
But this does not mean I am against UHC or paying for those who are chronically sick or even responsible for their own sickness.
I am okay with paying for treatment for smokers who have developed emphysema
I am okay with paying for abortions (not just pregnancies that are a result of rape)
I acknowledge that there are people who will cheat the system, but I know that transfer payments paying for disability and UHC are for the greater good of society. This is general consensus amongst most Canadians. Canada’s life expectancy is ranked 11th in the world while the United States is 35th.
[/quote]
First of all, paying for smokers is beyond ridiculous. Smoking/cigarettes are the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction and if we want to fight terrorists who kill Americans we’d bomb the shit out of Phillip-Morris factories. ANYTHING that gives comfort to smokers is entirely illogical, including paying for their health care. The tobacco companies should pay for it if we’re going to force someone to cover their costs.
I won’t even get into the abortion thing other than this: if you pay for it that means that all Canadians must pay for it, or all tax-paying Canadians, right? Well, with an issue as morally-ambiguous and emotionally-charged as abortion do you really feel it’s right for someone, in a country with religious freedom, to have to go against their religious beliefs by directly funding something like abortion? No.
You see, you CANNOT place accurate value judgments on this sort of thing. If the current system doesn’t work it’s not because people who don’t deserve help are getting it. ANY sort of govt-funded help is economically-unsound. If we want prosperity for all we can’t have it with backwards programs like these. And you can’t try to solve it by minimizing the program’s scope by trying to determine on an individual basis who gets what and who gets nothing. Sure, if you look at either end of the spectrum, like fat people versus motorcycle accident victims, then the value judgment is easy to make. But when you get to the middle of that spectrum you enter into a moral and ethical quagmire if you try to determine whether or not someone with, say borderline schizophrenia, should get the same payment as someone with Downs syndrome.
So the solution is simply to end all of these programs entirely since they DO NOT MAKE ANY ECONOMIC SENSE AT ALL. This avoids the messy affair of trying to place value on each and every disability. Let the free market decide who gets what. If I think fat people deserve more disability than someone with cerebral palsy (I don’t) why shouldn’t I be able to simply donate my time and money (for a tax break, which further stimulates the economy as well) to them as I see fit? Why shouldn’t you be able to do the same?
