Well we already provide for our poor, problem is they are always wanting more provisions. With the ever increasing handouts, their incentive and initiative to work goes down even more. MY problem is, with every increased handout, my efforts for my family gets undermined. Now I am expected to buy them HOUSES???Spark wrote:
This is better and much more sensible.lowing wrote:
On the surface, I see where you are coming from, but lets get real for a second.Spark wrote:
As commendable as a personal responsibility ethic is, I remain astounded by your idea that the government should not help the poor... do you believe this is just giving handouts to freeloaders too?
If your position is now the govt. should buy people homes now, tell me what incentive do I have to do anything for myself. Why should Itake the position of working hard busting my ass, if all I SHOULD have to do ( according to you ) is go stand in line for a house?
We live in a country where we are provided the tools to HELP OURSELVES. It is a crazy concept I know, but i works well for those that but forth the effort.
Where do you get this idea that I am supposed to work for the collective? That all of my efforts are supposed to go, NOT toward my family, but toward everyone else? I am sorry, there are programs in place to help people that I help pay for. Using these probrams to better yuorself is on you, NOT me. I really couldn't care less if you better yourself or not. I have my own life to monitor.
Your point is extremely valid, but from a policy-making point of view, very problematic. How are you going to stop them being a burden on society? Not give them anything? They turn to crime to make a living - all of them. Kill them off? Um...
Your only option is to give them something. A spark to get them towards higher things. I take the example of microcredit, where you give people just enough so that they can make their own personal income (there does exist a point below which you don't have the resources to start getting your own income, regardless of how hard you try [generally speaking]). Such a system has worked wonders in many countries, especially Bangladesh. It's based on the same principle that welfare (should) be based on - you're giving so they can start making.
"But," you say,Unfortunately this is a problem without an easy, practical solution. Grassroots is the only thing that can fix that, I think. It is incredibly difficult (from firsthand experience) to motivate those who don't care.microloans have less appeal in the US, because people think it too difficult to escape poverty through private enterprise.
I guess I agree with you, now that I think of my own experiences. This is a problem of culture and attitude in Western society. I wouldn't call it "entitlement", most people still accept that they have to do some work, but "expectation" is what I'd call it - people expect that they will get a job and are confused when they're told they're not qualified enough (to use a very, very, very weak example).
(I'm bearing in mind the comment someone I knew made, though, who remarked that your outlook risked a form of social darwinism)
My point is, though, from a policy point of view, ignoring the lower class will do far more harm than good, for many reasons (the above statement being one).
(sorry if a little incoherent, too much maths)
As far as your observation that ignoring them will only lead to crime, you are right, but I am not prepared to accept extortion, with the threat of being robbed or killed if I don't pay up. Because of this, what people are doing is escaping,deeper into the suburbs, with long commutes, hoping to get out of reach of the mass transit system.
Why do you think the cities are falling apart? Those with money have left the bullshit behind and refuse to deal with the parasites. If this isn't evidence enough to be good to people with money I don't know what is.
Last edited by lowing (2009-03-11 05:22:37)
