99 Weeks Later, Jobless Have Only Desperation

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephdavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good_News said:
Really? What government started a welfare state, and then inevitably and slowly became totalitarian?

Russia? They had a revolution, then took over Eastern Europe, and spread to Asia, all through violent revoltion or invasion. Nazi Germany? A radical political party took over. China? They had a revolution too.

So, what is the example of this inevitable totalitarianism that begins with social welfare programs?
Click to expand...
haha… It seems we have Mr. Beck here posting on the website. (sarcasm).

Well actually it was not Russia as the first Welfare State. It was actually the Maurya Empire as the first recorded Welfare State. Bismark in Germany established a Welfare State before the Russian Revolution.

I will give you China but Repubicans and Democrats and our beloved huge multi-national corporations seem to love doing business with China.🤷
I don’t see anyone clamoring for theocracy.
Click to expand...
Name one Theocracy that is stable and without violence. This nation was not founded on any religion either.
 
Good_News said:
Tibet had a good run for 300 years or so. Europe did fine thoughout the middle ages.
Click to expand...
And neither were a democracy at the time either. Theocracy was enforced by a monarchy in support of the Vatican. So you would trade democracy for theocracy?
 
josephdavid said:
So you would trade democracy for theocracy?
Click to expand...
We don’t have a democracy in America, or anywhere else. I don’t think there there’s been a democracy since Athens.

As to Tibet, the country was certainly backwards technologically. The romanticized vision of Hollywood is largely false. However, the few accounts of westerners who interacted with Tibetans prior to the Chinese invasion report the people seemed extraordinarily content. They created a one of a kind society, and a rich religious culture. I also find the parallels some have drawn to Tibetan Buddhism and Catholicism interesting. I think there would be worse things on this earth than to have been living in Tibet in 1930.

The theocratic regimes of the middle east, in contrast, seem quite ugly.

We don’t have any history of compatibility between theocracy and a “modern” society.

It’s a false choice. I’d certainly rather have a theocracy than a communist or fascist government, at least in theory.
 
Good_News said:
We don’t have a democracy in America, or anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t communist China originally a representative democracy? With each level voting for the level above it, and no true separation of powers.
Good_News said:
It’s a false choice. I’d certainly rather have a theocracy than a communist or fascist government, at least in theory.
Click to expand...
Me too. Especially the soft-theocracy option. A Christian constitutional monarchy wouldn’t be bad, for instance. That’s what Britain and Australia have, and they seem to be doing quite well. A Christian constitutional republic wouldn’t be bad, either. That’s very similar to what we already have, and most of us probably wouldn’t notice any difference in our lives.
 
CatholicGerman said:
Hmm… Since you are effectively voting for a system you will not have to pay for, I think you can then hardly consider it virtuous of yourself to have voted for it. Welfare seems like a better deal to you, and the majority of women and the poor, because charity is something that would come out of your own wallet. It’s getting something for nothing, which always sounds better than the alternative.
Click to expand...
Supporting the welfare is as virtuous as funding private charity since, as you admit yourself, it helps the poor, which in essence, is equivalent to the corporeal works of mercy in Matthew 25. Perhaps, the only personal grace can come from it if one agrees to support the state in a cheerful and not grudging fashion; judging the recipients would seem to eliminate any grace. I would prefer it because I would not have feelings of disappointment and despair I get from not being too effective.
We could compete with other private charities for money for children’s programs and even domestic violence programs, but it was impossible to raise money in sufficient quantities to run a psychiatric hospital full of people who did dangerous and unsympathetic things (like hear voices, live on the street, and stab people). The psychiatric hospital needed public money.
Click to expand...
That’s why private charity isn’t effective enough. Too many people are judgmental.
 
Black_Rose said:
Supporting the welfare is as virtuous as funding private charity since, as you admit yourself, it helps the poor, which in essence, is equivalent to the corporeal works of mercy in Matthew 25.
Click to expand...
Welfare is a service of government meant to promote the general good. It is an obligation, and part of our social contract, not charity. Welfare is virtuous only for the person paying for it, and only if they do so willingly. Just as national defense is only virtuous for the person fighting in the battle, and only if they do so willingly. If I am merely voting for someone else to fight, I am not being virtuous, but self-serving. If I am merely voting for someone else to pay, I am not being virtuous, but self-serving. That was my whole point.

Women rarely pay for welfare, therefore they are being self-serving to call for it, or to consider their call for it an act of virtue. If women want welfare, they should sit down and write a check to their state government in the amount they would wish to contribute. Otherwise, they are merely posing as virtuous because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Black_Rose said:
Too many people are judgmental.
Click to expand...
I do not follow your logic. Every person is judgemental. One is either judgemental, or they are lacking in judgement (amoral). Are you suggesting that amorality is moral? That it is wrong to judge people?
 
CatholicGerman said:
Welfare is a service of government meant to promote the general good. It is an obligation, and part of our social contract, not charity. Welfare is virtuous only for the person paying for it, and only if they do so willingly. Just as national defense is only virtuous for the person fighting in the battle, and only if they do so willingly. If I am merely voting for someone else to fight, I am not being virtuous, but self-serving. If I am merely voting for someone else to pay, I am not being virtuous, but self-serving. That was my whole point.

Women rarely pay for welfare, therefore they are being self-serving to call for it, or to consider their call for it an act of virtue. If women want welfare, they should sit down and write a check to their state government in the amount they would wish to contribute. Otherwise, they are merely posing as virtuous because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Click to expand...
Supporting the welfare state can be virtuous since it is a respect for objective outcomes, measured by the welfare of the poor. Those who are net beneficiaries of the welfare state can still be virtuous, though, by being grateful for the prevailing macroeconomic system of the welfare state, and, most importantly, treating their fellow citizens with amity and respect. They might not be able to contribute financial to the welfare state nor have the intellect necessary to defend it as a political philosophy, but they can contribute by promoting an ethos and public sentiment conducive to the welfare state.
I do not follow your logic. Every person is judgemental. One is either judgemental, or they are lacking in judgement (amoral). Are you suggesting that amorality is moral? That it is wrong to judge people?
Click to expand...
Consider the hypothesis (I’ll use an analogy from statistical hypothesis testing):

Person A’s prolonged stint of unemployment is due*** not ***to their laziness or another personality flaw.

This hypothesis would be the null hypothesis. Those who are less judgmental be less likely to accept that hypothesis, and attribute their personal misfortune due to the structural problems of the economic, not individual character flaws. I suppose being less judgmental, such as myself, would render one vulnerable to making type II errors; falsely assuming that a given person’s problems are due to factors beyond his/her control when it is within their control: a false negative. Conversely, more judgmental people tend to make more type I errors; incorrectly assuming that a person’s problems are within his/her control, when it is not: a false positive. In this case, people who are more judgmental would be less charitable and less willing to provide the corporeal works of mercy. Less judgmental people would use lower alpha values, require more “statistical significance” (a very low “p value”) to reject the null hypothesis, while more judgmental people use higher alphas.
 
Black_Rose said:
In this case, people who are more judgmental would be less charitable and less willing to provide the corporeal works of mercy. Less judgmental people would use lower alpha values, require more “statistical significance” (a very low “p value”) to reject the null hypothesis, while more judgmental people use higher alphas.
Click to expand...
Moving from a propensity to be negatively judgemental to a lack of charity and being “less willing to provide the corporeal works of mercy” is quite a stretch. You are (falsely) assuming that those people are inherently less generous, less forgiving, and less inclined to charity and good works. You are also (falsely) assuming that those people are hypocrites, or that they hold themselves to a lower standard than others. But such people would actually be more, not less, inclined to view other people as “*fellow *sinners”. It is the denial of culpability or joint-responsibility that they reject.

I am inclined to help people who are facing hard times because they are facing hard times. Whether or not it is their own fault, is mostly irrelevant to me. If a family is homeless because they made a foolish bet on an overpriced house out of greed, then I don’t say, “Let them sleep in their car.” I’m inclined to help them anyway because they are my neighbor. Hopefully, they’ve learned their lesson and will be more careful of the financial risks the next time. But that does not change the fact that they were homeless through their own dumb fault.

I’ve also faced hard times because of my own stupidity, greed, or gullibility. It happens to all of us. But I am also willing to admit that my problems were partially caused by my own actions and decisions. Many are not. And that is what irritates me.
 
Black_Rose said:
Supporting the welfare is as virtuous as funding private charity since, as you admit yourself, it helps the poor, which in essence, is equivalent to the corporeal works of mercy in Matthew 25. Perhaps, the only personal grace can come from it if one agrees to support the state in a cheerful and not grudging fashion; judging the recipients would seem to eliminate any grace. I would prefer it because I would not have feelings of disappointment and despair I get from not being too effective.

That’s why private charity isn’t effective enough. Too many people are judgmental.
Click to expand...
But does the “welfare state” help the poor? Further, does it do so, to the extent it does it at all, out of a motivation to help the poor? Can it, therefore, be relied upon to so apply the money it extracts from others?

I’m not persuaded yet.
-Note, for example, its lack of adequate provision for the disabled needy on SSI. Nothing in the works on that at all, notwithstanding they’re the worst off.
-Note this government’s promising to pay for public employees by taking money away from food stamps.
-Note this government’s promising to cut Medicare in order to fund the health insurance bill which will subidize people making up to $88,000.00.

One might conclude from those examples (and others) that perhaps the government’s “charity” is actually politically motivated “coalition building”, or an attempt in that direction.
 
An important point, Ridgerunner. Most government spending is directed toward the middle class and upper class, because that is where the votes are. Most of the middle class can write off enough to pay net-zero or below taxes, while the upper class is stuck with a larger portion of the bill.

Most welfare is just a shifting of money from certain segments of the middle class to other segments. The segments change, depending upon who is currently in office. And the government skims off a bit each time a transfer is made.

For that reason, the churches in our town run the food pantry, the free clinic, the soup kitchen, and both the men’s and women’s shelters. Other than their tax-exempt status, the state does not contribute to these efforts. These people are too poor to count.
 
CatholicGerman said:
An important point, Ridgerunner. Most government spending is directed toward the middle class and upper class, because that is where the votes are. Most of the middle class can write off enough to pay net-zero or below taxes, while the upper class is stuck with a larger portion of the bill.

Most welfare is just a shifting of money from certain segments of the middle class to other segments. The segments change, depending upon who is currently in office. And the government skims off a bit each time a transfer is made.

For that reason, the churches in our town run the food pantry, the free clinic, the soup kitchen, and both the men’s and women’s shelters. Other than their tax-exempt status, the state does not contribute to these efforts. These people are too poor to count.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that individuals’ being “judgmental” is all that big an impediment to charity, either. You would have to look hard to find people who are more “judgmental” in a moral sense than nuns, monks, Salvation Army people and Baptist preachers. Yet, all operate charitable enterprises that provide for lots of people who are pretty questionable, morally.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But does the “welfare state” help the poor? Further, does it do so, to the extent it does it at all, out of a motivation to help the poor? Can it, therefore, be relied upon to so apply the money it extracts from others?

I’m not persuaded yet.
-Note, for example, its lack of adequate provision for the disabled needy on SSI. Nothing in the works on that at all, notwithstanding they’re the worst off.
-Note this government’s promising to pay for public employees by taking money away from food stamps.
-Note this government’s promising to cut Medicare in order to fund the health insurance bill which will subidize people making up to $88,000.00.

One might conclude from those examples (and others) that perhaps the government’s “charity” is actually politically motivated “coalition building”, or an attempt in that direction.
Click to expand...
How long have we had a “war on poverty”? Has it been effective?

Also, those in government have not shown that they are good stewards of our money. I would think if our government leaders actually acted like they care how our money gets spent, fewer people would object to welfare. But unfortunately, the government uses our tax money to buy votes and stay in power.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
If you’re out of work for 99 weeks then maybe you just aren’t cut out for work.

It just isn’t that hard to find work when you are willing to do anything. Go and start cleaning out toilets or mowing lawns. Unemployed usually just means unemployable in this country.
Click to expand...
It must be wonderful to be able to feel so self-rightous.
 
betty_ann said:
It must be wonderful to be able to feel so self-rightous.
Click to expand...
Well, Kostya is typically correct, but his statement is relative.

Michigan and more specifically Detroit, as much as I feel like they have made their own bed, is not the place to be seeking employment right now. I have in-laws there and they have managed to keep their jobs as far as I know. But it’s a horrible place to be if you lost your job and are seriously looking for a new one.

But for states that have been a little more fiscally responsible, not in bed with unions and democrats, if you can not find a job. You are not looking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top