Shaming the bottom-feeders.

[GhostWriter16]

You realize that this exact sort of system (either a Guaranteed Minimum Income or a Negative Income Tax) was supported by one of your favorite economists?

Milton Friedman supported the NIT IIRC. He wanted to move in the right direction, but he definitely wasn't the best one.

Because we're a modern, industrialized, wealthy nation who should be capable of lending a helping hand to those in need. I won't go off on my usual tangent about how it should be at the state rather than federal level, though. For the purposes of this thread, just accept that we have the means and therefore have a societal obligation to lend that hand

OK, I'm not making the logical leap from "Social obligation" to "Acceptable to force at gunpoint."

I worked to put that food in my mouth, thank you very much. It's the system of using money as the universal exchanger of labor for commodities that you and your ilk so insist upon that required me to get additional aid.

I don't insist on it. People should be able to make any mutually agreeable exchanges they want.

You have apparently missed the part where I am a communist?

Yet you seem to think that only the market is evil. Not government. You should be working with Libertarians to lower the tax rates so the government can't steal as much of it.

 

[MobBoss]

If you check the figure I gave on the previous page then you'll see that these people you mention are pretty much just ignorant and I'm doubtful that there's much we can do to change their minds. At the same time, thousands of people who aren't on drugs and may have never been on drugs in their entire lives would be subjected to an invasive search and seizure.

It's not invasive search and seizure if you make it conditional upon receiving the aid; then in essence it's voluntary. This isn't to arrest them or charge them, but would be contingent upon receiving the aid.

I didn't have to pee in a cup while in the military, but I choose to do so in order to remain in service. If you want to continue receiving aid, volunteer to pee in the cup. If you don't wanna, well, it's been a slice, see you later.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't insist on it. People should be able to make any mutually agreeable exchanges they want.

Then you are no longer defending capitalism.

Yet you seem to think that only the market is evil. Not government. You should be working with Libertarians to lower the tax rates so the government can't steal as much of it.

No, I think The State (not government) is the lesser of the two evils, of which the market is the far greater. But that is because the market allows private tyranny over large numbers of people; the government functions without the morally corruptive problem of profit, and is answerable to the people. The State has its own set of problems, obviously, seeing as I want to do away with it, but if I must choose in a non-communist system between the two, I know which I will always choose.

Government, on the other hand, is merely the social organization which administers a given territory and population. At present, government and state are tied together, at the national level. But the local government is not The State, now is it? When communists have their way, many more things will be locally administered by government.

 

[Goodfella]

It's not invasive search and seizure if you make it conditional upon receiving the aid; then in essence it's voluntary. This isn't to arrest them or charge them, but would be contingent upon receiving the aid.

It's unreasonable for that aid to be contingent upon a urine test which is unnecessary (see my stat about how few recipients in FL were even using drugs). Plus it seems rather degrading. Think of the women and old men who have to be subjected to a drug test as if they were common criminals. And it's immoral to establish conditions for which you can receive subsistence, drug user or not. There's just a host of reasons to be against the proposal. The only one that sounds reasonable is the one you raised earlier regarding the program's reputation, but the benefits out way the costs in my opinion.

 

[MobBoss]

It's unreasonable for that aid to be contingent upon a urine test which is unnecessary (see my stat about how few recipients in FL were even using drugs). Plus it seems rather degrading. Think of the women and old men who have to be subjected to a drug test as if they were common criminals. And it's immoral to establish conditions for which you can receive subsistence, drug user or not. There's just a host of reasons to be against the proposal. The only one that sounds reasonable is the one you raised earlier regarding the program's reputation, but the benefits out way the costs in my opinion.

I disagree with you that it's unreasonable. In fact, several states are considering passing such legislation currently. Here is a great argument for it btw:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/s...fare-programs-should-promote-self-sufficiency

The U.S. government this year spent over $900 billion on 70 different means-tested welfare programs. These programs (not including Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance) provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans.

But welfare assistance should not be a one-way handout or open-ended entitlement. We ought to provide such aid on the basis of reciprocal obligation. Taxpayers should provide support to those in need; recipients, in return, should engage in responsible and constructive behavior as a condition of receiving aid.

Requiring welfare recipients to stop using illegal drugs is a core element of reciprocal obligation. And it's a real issue. Most related studies indicate that one third of welfare recipients use illegal drugs.

As welfare spending approaches $1 trillion a year, taxpayers have a right to insist that their financial help not only goes to those who truly need it but that it's not wasted on frivolous or self-destructive activities such as drug use. Evidence shows that drug testing has the potential to significantly reduce unnecessary welfare spending and misuse of funds.

Florida's policy of requiring drug testing for welfare applicants, for example, appears to have reduced new welfare enrollments by as much as 48 percent. Potential applicants who use illegal drugs simply chose not to enter the welfare system. Of course, they could sign up for welfare in the future, but first would have to refrain from taking the illegal drugs. The choice was theirs.

Finally, welfare programs should be designed to promote self-sufficiency among able-bodied adults and to discourage long-term dependence on government. Scientific evaluation of Florida's drug-testing requirement showed that welfare recipients who used illegal drugs had earnings that were 30 percent lower than those who did not. Quite simply, drug use was linked to lower levels of work.

Any serious effort to promote employment and self-sufficiency should include steps to decrease illegal drug use among those on welfare. It's just common sense that a well-designed program of drug testing is one of the important tools in any effective welfare-to-work strategy.

Nothing wrong with that. Yes, we should support those in need, and yes, they owe us to be responsible with what we give them. That is a win/win situation.

As to it being degrading, remember who you are talking to. I was drug tested my entire time in the military. If soldiers can deal with it, so can prospective welfare recipients. Or do you consider soldiers as 'common criminals'?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then you are no longer defending capitalism.

Maybe we're defining our terms differently. This is off topic, but I'm curious about it. Can I PM you?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Maybe we're defining our terms differently. This is off topic, but I'm curious about it. Can I PM you?

My door is always open.

 

[Goodfella]

I disagree with you that it's unreasonable. In fact, several states are considering passing such legislation currently. Here is a great argument for it btw:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/s...fare-programs-should-promote-self-sufficiency

The figure I gave earlier was that only 2.6% were users so there's a contradiction between that and your "one third" figure. But besides that, it pretty much comes to a philosophical difference. The view is that basic subsistence living should be guaranteed to all people and this includes drug users. The drug abuse should be handled separately and be treated as a public health concern and not a crime. The rationale for this viewpoint (that it should be a public health issue) is that drug users aren't exactly rationale actors and the addiction is so strong that though they may have made the choice initially to take the drug, by the time they want to quit, it's extremely challenging to do so. So your article says that the people who want to use public assistance should be just quit using drugs and if they don't, that's they're choice, isn't accurate. It's probably pretty difficult to persuade you of this view by this point in your life. Not anything against you, it's just that political views are often cemented.

As to it being degrading, remember who you are talking to. I was drug tested my entire time in the military. If soldiers can deal with it, so can prospective welfare recipients. Or do you consider soldiers as 'common criminals'?

I'm aware and I've thought of this as well. Though many on my side of the spectrum and probably a lot on this forum are opposed to drug tests in the military, my view is that it's acceptable. Since the military has specific duties that simply can't be performed if members in the military are using drugs, it's justifiable to test them. Now you might want to get me on "why is it okay to test guys in the military but not everyone else?" It then comes down to what I've already talked about. The entitlements should be guaranteed whereas service in the military isn't.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'm not certain when we dredged up this Dickensian attitude towards poverty, but having done so, I say we take it the logical step or two further and just all agree that the poor are given to be poor by the enormity and severity of their sins.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My door is always open.

Sent Look forward to it.

Regarding the OP: Focusing excessively on the little guys is silly. And there is no shame whatsoever in takingwelfare. I'm taking financial aid. I don't believe it has any right to exist, since its stolen, but I also see nothing wrong with stealing from thieves (I do not advocate doing so illegally, of course.) And the government is the ultimate thief. Feel free to be a parasite on it's back. Just don't pretend you actually have an entitlement to the money.

But no, you shouldn't have to "Thank" people who never volunteered to give you the money in the first place. If it was voluntary it would be called "Charity" in the first place.

Government steals for far, far worse purposes than the poor though. The military industrial complex takes 700 billion a year. Fractional-reserve (fraudulent) banks are given 40 billion a month. I'm much more immediately worried about those sorts of things, and the unsustainable entitlements system, than the easy to cut but not particularly expensive individual welfare.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

How dare you! You should be kissing the shoes of the people who worked to put that food in your mouth.

And for a decent part of the last month, I was barely eating. I resorted to attempting to eat Shake & Bake (which are these breadcrumb things you put on chicken). Whose shoes should I kiss in that case? I barely had any food in my mouth.

 

[JollyRoger]

I've got some food and a pair of boots for the thread starter to start kissing.

 

[MobBoss]

The figure I gave earlier was that only 2.6% were users so there's a contradiction between that and your "one third" figure. But besides that, it pretty much comes to a philosophical difference. The view is that basic subsistence living should be guaranteed to all people and this includes drug users. The drug abuse should be handled separately and be treated as a public health concern and not a crime.

Again, this program wouldn't be to ascertain a crime, that's why there is no presumptive illegal search and seizure. This isn't a law enforcement action. In fact, i'd agree that the results of such a test should be inadmissible for that purpose. The only ramification of a positive test would be that you simply are removed from the program. That doesn't make you a criminal - it simply makes you ineligible for a period of time.

The rationale for this viewpoint (that it should be a public health issue) is that drug users aren't exactly rationale actors and the addiction is so strong that though they may have made the choice initially to take the drug, by the time they want to quit, it's extremely challenging to do so.

I would argue that this would actually promote rehabilitation. Users that still have recourse via governmental fiscal support have less reason to rehabilitate.

So your article says that the people who want to use public assistance should be just quit using drugs and if they don't, that's they're choice, isn't accurate.

It's precisely accurate. Even if you are addicted you still have choices in life and yes, choosing to continue to use drugs is still your choice. My father was a rampant alcoholic, and he was still responsible for his behavior regardless of his addiction. Why are you so adamant in excusing drug use?

It's probably pretty difficult to persuade you of this view by this point in your life. Not anything against you, it's just that political views are often cemented.

Again, my personal views aside, this is an issue that is quickly gaining support all across America, and is apparently seeing actual and positive results in Florida.

I'm aware and I've thought of this as well. Though many on my side of the spectrum and probably a lot on this forum are opposed to drug tests in the military, my view is that it's acceptable. Since the military has specific duties that simply can't be performed if members in the military are using drugs, it's justifiable to test them. Now you might want to get me on "why is it okay to test guys in the military but not everyone else?" It then comes down to what I've already talked about. The entitlements should be guaranteed whereas service in the military isn't.

Aside from the fact that those receiving government aid still have an obligation of responsibility back to the taxpayers supporting them.

 

[JollyRoger]

So Mobby, have you come around to agreeing that the CEO of a company receiving government subsidies should have to pee in a cup for the company to keep the subsidies?

 

[MobBoss]

So Mobby, have you come around to agreeing that the CEO of a company receiving government subsidies should have to pee in a cup for the company to keep the subsidies?

Larger question with more variables, but I wouldn't be against it in concept - that being that said corporation has an obligation to the taxpayer in some form. Instead of peeing in a cup, perhaps said corporation accepts no notice inspections or audits or something similar.

But in concept, I agree.

 

[JollyRoger]

Welfare receipients are already subject to no notice inspections and audits. If you want to add a drug test for them, you add a drug test for corporations on the dole.

 

[Gucumatz]

We haven't seen the light yet, have we? May I recommend The Fountainhead?

Or would you care to provide any evidence for your empty assertion?

Someone recommended The Fountainhead? Oddly enough that's the only book of Ayn Rand's I have actually ever read. You know the scene that I remember the most from reading it years ago, was when Wynand is laying dying on the street and a man simply stares at him.

This man doesn't want to help him, doesn't want to care, doesn't want to get involved in his plight. Wynand being the Libertarian wunderkind he is/was naturally feels entitled to that man's compassion. Expects that man's help in his hour of need, which of course he doesn't receive. Rather than learn humility and gain an understanding of poverty, life or death, or factors people have to live through every day - Wynand dedicates the next couple of years to ruin the man who left him dying in the street.

Funny, that the Libertarian is the most vindictive and that this little passage is just one of many little cracks in Rand's demonstrations of her Utopia.
======

Those "masses" and the "poor", "uneducated", the "meek" that you seek to shame today remember what you did. Now I am not saying shaming them will turn them into your own Libertarian Wynands, but people remember their treatment at the hands of others. I understand principles like the Golden Rule are taboo for the most hardcore extremists as yourself Mouthwash, but there are reasons society exist. Question them if you wish, but if you are blind to reality you will never see what may be happening to a friend, neighbor, family member that you unabatedly clump in those masses

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian. In fact, she HATED Libertarians. And there is NOTHING in Libertarianism that says you should leave someone to die. In fact, while Libertarian philosophy itself is insufficient to answer the question, most Libertarians would be against that

EDIT: Why are we supporting CORPORATE Welfare now?

 

[Gucumatz]

When someone calls out "Corporate" Welfare, be more specific. "Corporate Welfare" serves many uses. Obviously there are various economists out there who disagree with the subsidizing of certain industries due to net loss, but again it has its uses depending on the situation.

Corporate Welfare just as like human welfare is not a thing you can paint with a size fits all brush and be done with it.
=======

And regardless, Mouthwash's hero made it clear in the book that Wynand's desire for help from another human was against Rand's philosophy. Against it, but showed how the primal nature in all of us realize everyone needs help sometime and somewhere and even Rand hesitantly acknowledged. She barely played with the concept in the Fountainhead but it pulled against the strings of everything she held dear

 

[Ajidica]

Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian. In fact, she HATED Libertarians. And there is NOTHING in Libertarianism that says you should leave someone to die. In fact, while Libertarian philosophy itself is insufficient to answer the question, most Libertarians would be against that

I'm confused: why are we talking about a cranky Russian bat?