Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England
I am sure the New York Times is right when it says that the stigma of using food stamps is fading, but it brings us to another aspect of the “Do we want to be like Europe?” question that has been at the center of so much that’s happened since the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Stigma is the only way that a free society can be generous, whether through private help or government programs. The dilemma is as old as charity: how to give help without creating a cycle in which more people need help. Stigma is the way out. Stigma does three things.

First, stigma leads people to socialize their children in ways that minimize the chance that they’ll need help as they grow up. When children are taught that accepting charity is a disgrace, they also tend to be taught the kinds of things they should and shouldn’t do to avoid that disgrace.

Second, stigma encourages the right kind of self-selection. People in need are not usually in a binary yes-no situation. Instead, they are usually somewhere on a continuum from “I’m desperate” to “Gee, a little help would be kind of nice.” Stigma makes people ask whether the help is really that essential. That’s good—for the affordability of giving help, and for the resourcefulness of the potential recipients.

Third, stigma discourages dependence—it induces people to do everything they can to get out of the situation that put them in need of help.

All of these benefits of stigma reflect tendencies. Of course there are lots of exceptions. But large-scale assistance is shaped by tendencies. The European model says that people should look upon assistance as a right. Once you say that, the tendencies you create commit you to a cradle-to-grave system of government-decided support systems and corresponding limits on the ability of people to make choices for themselves.

The American model holds up the ideal of individuals and families making lives for themselves as they see fit and accepting the consequences of their choices. We all understand that sometimes people get in trouble through no fault of their own and that getting in trouble even if it is their fault doesn’t mean they should be left to their fate. If we as a nation still believe in the American Model—and that’s an open question—then we have to accept that stigma is indispensable for providing help without destroying the model.
http://blog.american.com/?p=7634

I happen to agree with him. Any thoughts?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6865|Columbus, OH
I dunno this will give momentum other things and people will get carried away with, like the Roman Catholic Church telling me masterbating is wrong.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6918|949

I agree that a social stigma regarding welfare could and does force people to think about accepting handouts and may stop people from becoming dependent on them.  However I don't necessarily agree with his statement that the Euro model encourages dependence and the American model holds up the ideal of individuals and maybe discourages dependence.

I would like to look at some data regarding welfare in various European countries and the US and see if there really is a stronger sense of dependence in Euro systems as opposed to the US system.  It's an interesting question for sure.

In my opinion I think it is more conducive to set up parameters in the welfare model to discourage dependency than rely on an abstract qualitative idea such as social stigma.  I know we already have parameters set up like cutting off certain welfare benefits after so many years and limiting certain welfare benefits to 2 continuous years.  I think the welfare system in general could use a major overhaul, and that overhaul should include a shift in focus from simply providing basic services to providing a complete system for people to go from dependence to independence.  That includes providing basic services at the outset and providing job training and services, financial independence and stability options, and rental services.  The end goal for every welfare case should be total independence from the welfare system, not making sure that those who need benefits get them.  I don't think the current system has that end goal.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I agree that a social stigma regarding welfare could and does force people to think about accepting handouts and may stop people from becoming dependent on them.  However I don't necessarily agree with his statement that the Euro model encourages dependence and the American model holds up the ideal of individuals and maybe discourages dependence.

I would like to look at some data regarding welfare in various European countries and the US and see if there really is a stronger sense of dependence in Euro systems as opposed to the US system.  It's an interesting question for sure.

In my opinion I think it is more conducive to set up parameters in the welfare model to discourage dependency than rely on an abstract qualitative idea such as social stigma.  I know we already have parameters set up like cutting off certain welfare benefits after so many years and limiting certain welfare benefits to 2 continuous years.  I think the welfare system in general could use a major overhaul, and that overhaul should include a shift in focus from simply providing basic services to providing a complete system for people to go from dependence to independence.  That includes providing basic services at the outset and providing job training and services, financial independence and stability options, and rental services.  The end goal for every welfare case should be total independence from the welfare system, not making sure that those who need benefits get them.  I don't think the current system has that end goal.
A strong argument could be made that they are already given as much job training and support as necessary by society to succeed. In my experience, most people who end up on welfare do so because the value of education wasn't stressed to them. How much hand holding and coddling should people need to achieve the success necessary to survive? There are entire cultures here in America that stress failure as the goal because it leads to an easy life. Most of them don't want jobs or job training, they just want to collect their welfare and watch tv.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6842
I love people's misconceptions about Europe. They're hilarious. Food stamps? lol.

The European model produced a lower level of unemployment in Ireland during the boom than was the case in the US. QED. Only a tiny sliver of society would willingly want to live on a miserable state-supplied breadline. I'd say somewhere in the region of 97% of humanity, in any environment, will want to better their living conditions by earning them.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-01 12:16:42)

Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6757
bloody left-wing socialists and their feigned delusions of liberalism...

mind you i get a pretty good deal with my rationing down at the local working man's club...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

CameronPoe wrote:

I love people's misconceptions about Europe. They're hilarious. Food stamps? lol.

The European model produced a lower level of unemployment in Ireland during the boom than was the case in the US. QED.
Hey, I didn't write it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6757

JohnG@lt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I love people's misconceptions about Europe. They're hilarious. Food stamps? lol.

The European model produced a lower level of unemployment in Ireland during the boom than was the case in the US. QED.
Hey, I didn't write it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I happen to agree with him. Any thoughts?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7023|Salt Lake City

I don't think you'd ever get away with it.  The reason being is that if you look at the distribution of welfare assistance across racial boundaries, minority groups by far make up the largest potion.  This would then get turned into a racial profiling or some type of discrimination case.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I love people's misconceptions about Europe. They're hilarious. Food stamps? lol.

The European model produced a lower level of unemployment in Ireland during the boom than was the case in the US. QED.
Hey, I didn't write it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I happen to agree with him. Any thoughts?
I agree with his statement that receiving government assistance needs a social stigma attached to it or it fosters dependence.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6908|London, England
So now we've come full circle with what Poe said in the first place then, Galt
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:

So now we've come full circle with what Poe said in the first place then, Galt
So how does the UK get it's citizens off govt assistance then?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6908|London, England
I think you'll find that the majority of people do everything they can to get off it, it's just that the people who do earn a living off it get all the attention. When you break it down, like Poe said, most people are anything but content with living life like that. It does more good than bad, but only the bad is given attention. Same goes for the NHS. Good stories don't sell newspapers or keep watchers and listeners tuned in or readers coming into websites. That's how the media works.

What was the point of saying hey I didn't write it, what kind of lame ass retort is that anyway. Fuck that.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

So now we've come full circle with what Poe said in the first place then, Galt
So how does the UK get it's citizens off govt assistance then?
AFAIK You must be actively getting a job.

Europe as a whole has one of the lowest unemployment rate, and higher GDP per capita as well... Economic growth in Europe was still pretty good before the recession.

Remember, there is still a social stigma being a lazy government welfare collecting prick in any country.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

So now we've come full circle with what Poe said in the first place then, Galt
So how does the UK get it's citizens off govt assistance then?
AFAIK You must be actively getting a job.

Europe as a whole has one of the lowest unemployment rate, and higher GDP per capita as well... Economic growth in Europe was still pretty good before the recession.

Remember, there is still a social stigma being a lazy government welfare collecting prick in any country.
I thought they were arguing that the stigma wasn't necessary.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6918|949

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I agree that a social stigma regarding welfare could and does force people to think about accepting handouts and may stop people from becoming dependent on them.  However I don't necessarily agree with his statement that the Euro model encourages dependence and the American model holds up the ideal of individuals and maybe discourages dependence.

I would like to look at some data regarding welfare in various European countries and the US and see if there really is a stronger sense of dependence in Euro systems as opposed to the US system.  It's an interesting question for sure.

In my opinion I think it is more conducive to set up parameters in the welfare model to discourage dependency than rely on an abstract qualitative idea such as social stigma.  I know we already have parameters set up like cutting off certain welfare benefits after so many years and limiting certain welfare benefits to 2 continuous years.  I think the welfare system in general could use a major overhaul, and that overhaul should include a shift in focus from simply providing basic services to providing a complete system for people to go from dependence to independence.  That includes providing basic services at the outset and providing job training and services, financial independence and stability options, and rental services.  The end goal for every welfare case should be total independence from the welfare system, not making sure that those who need benefits get them.  I don't think the current system has that end goal.
A strong argument could be made that they are already given as much job training and support as necessary by society to succeed. In my experience, most people who end up on welfare do so because the value of education wasn't stressed to them. How much hand holding and coddling should people need to achieve the success necessary to survive? There are entire cultures here in America that stress failure as the goal because it leads to an easy life. Most of them don't want jobs or job training, they just want to collect their welfare and watch tv.
How many people do you know on welfare or that have been on welfare?  I used to volunteer for a program called "Food not Bombs" for a few years and I met a good amount of people on welfare and in 'the system.'  It was a common complaint that the system as is does almost nothing and in many cases impedes people from becoming independent.  I think you'll find that a lot of people don't want to be on welfare for various reasons, including the stigma mentioned in the article you linked.  Surely there are plenty who do nothing and suck off the teat of welfare, and I think that needs to be addressed too in a major way.  I don't think people need to be coddled, I think people need to be given the necessary tools and guidelines to become success stories, not leeches of society.  I don't think the system as it is does that to a good enough degree.

Your reasoning in why people end up on welfare really isn't relevant or as important as making sure people don't stay on welfare.  I really don't think it is very intelligent to offer up blanket statements that entire cultures here in the US stress failure because it allows people an easy life on the dole.  The focus should be on giving people on welfare the necessary tools to get off it and never fall back to it again, and the system as is doesn't do that to a good enough degree.  There is a reason we don't often hear about welfare success stories - because there aren't that many.  The welfare system as it exists is set up to continue the bureaucracy and continue the money flow to the system, not to wean people off it.  That may be the stated goal of social welfare in the US, but the reality isn't that peachy.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

How many people do you know on welfare or that have been on welfare?  I used to volunteer for a program called "Food not Bombs" for a few years and I met a good amount of people on welfare and in 'the system.'  It was a common complaint that the system as is does almost nothing and in many cases impedes people from becoming independent.  I think you'll find that a lot of people don't want to be on welfare for various reasons, including the stigma mentioned in the article you linked.  Surely there are plenty who do nothing and suck off the teat of welfare, and I think that needs to be addressed too in a major way.  I don't think people need to be coddled, I think people need to be given the necessary tools and guidelines to become success stories, not leeches of society.  I don't think the system as it is does that to a good enough degree.

Your reasoning in why people end up on welfare really isn't relevant or as important as making sure people don't stay on welfare.  I really don't think it is very intelligent to offer up blanket statements that entire cultures here in the US stress failure because it allows people an easy life on the dole.  The focus should be on giving people on welfare the necessary tools to get off it and never fall back to it again, and the system as is doesn't do that to a good enough degree.  There is a reason we don't often hear about welfare success stories - because there aren't that many.  The welfare system as it exists is set up to continue the bureaucracy and continue the money flow to the system, not to wean people off it.  That may be the stated goal of social welfare in the US, but the reality isn't that peachy.
I've known quite a few actually. Back in the 70s my hometown accepted government money to build 'projects' and my school district happened to encompass this section of town. Yes, blanket statements are bad and never fit but in my experience the children of welfare parents didn't behave in class, didn't study and didn't do well on tests. They were generally in the very bottom classes and because of this they fell behind. Now, an argument could be made that the teachers should've singled out these students for guidance and offered them a hand but it's not the teachers job to do so. It's the parents job. The family three doors down from me growing up consisted of a crack addict mother and her four sons (no fathers around at all). While I would go home and do my homework before going outside to play, they were in the street from the minute they got out of school until midnight. Three of the four were left back at least once, only the oldest turned out to be worth a damn and he ended up having a kid when he was 18.

Now, in an example like this, where they saw their mother collect food stamps and welfare, where there were no father figures, and where education wasn't stressed as a way out, exactly how much of a chance do you think they had? Almost none. They had no one to teach them how life worked because even their own mother had failed at it. Do you prevent her from having kids? No, of course not. Do you take away her kids and have someone else raise them? You could but where do you draw the line or prevent it from becoming politically motivated? Stupid people are generally stupid because their parents were stupid and there isn't a whole lot you can do to change it or break the cycle, no matter how many social programs you implement.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


So how does the UK get it's citizens off govt assistance then?
AFAIK You must be actively getting a job.

Europe as a whole has one of the lowest unemployment rate, and higher GDP per capita as well... Economic growth in Europe was still pretty good before the recession.

Remember, there is still a social stigma being a lazy government welfare collecting prick in any country.
I thought they were arguing that the stigma wasn't necessary.
Its not necessary, the stigma will always exist. Ever hear teachers anywhere award A's to students who don't do anything at school? (Fucking a teacher is still doing something).
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6842

Cybargs wrote:

Its not necessary, the stigma will always exist.
If someone is unemployed and is a decent hard working fellow who got let go and is having problems finding new employment you feel sorry for him in an embarrassed kind of way. If he is a lazy scrounger content to live the meagre pathetic life that benefits afford someone then he will always be frowned upon. The stigma goes without saying, it's like saying 'Eggs should be called eggs'.

The term for the latter here in Ireland is 'knacker'. An area in which such people congregate is sometimes referred to as 'Knackeragua'. They are pejorative terms. There is absolutely no difference in how Europeans view these matters.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-01 14:15:33)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Funny, the fat cat banks or defense contractors don't see anything wrong in fleecing the govt - its good business practice.
But nail the little guy by all means.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-01 14:41:22)

Fuck Israel
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

CameronPoe wrote:

The term for the latter here in Ireland is 'knacker'. An area in which such people congregate is sometimes referred to as 'Knackeragua'. They are pejorative terms. There is absolutely no difference in how Europeans view these matters.
here:

'dole bludger'
or just
'lazy cuntbag'
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Spark wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The term for the latter here in Ireland is 'knacker'. An area in which such people congregate is sometimes referred to as 'Knackeragua'. They are pejorative terms. There is absolutely no difference in how Europeans view these matters.
here:

'dole bludger'
or just
'lazy cuntbag'
Here there seems to be a misguided pride in 'sticking it to the man' by living off welfare. It's a carry-over from the hippies in the 60s.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6918|949

Or also the quintessential black crackhead welfare mom with 6 kids...a myth propagated during the Reagan era that still permeates into general conversation 25 years later.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Or also the quintessential black crackhead welfare mom with 6 kids...a myth propagated during the Reagan era that still permeates into general conversation 25 years later.
Four kids, and it's the truth. That story I gave is my own from my childhood. I can even give you the address on google earth if you want.

https://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb139/winterkiss42/home2.jpg

48 Coles St, Glen Cove, NY
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
BVC
Member
+325|6982
Dole bludger & bludging students, though the latter is a bit of a misnomer these days, as students typically borrow their weekly payment now rather than getting a benefit.  Don't really have a term for people who abuse the sickness benefit/other benefits.

Its enough to live on, but not enough that there is no incentive to look for even low-paid or part-time work (not even half of a full weeks work at minimum wage) and if you're on it you'll learn to make your food dollar go further.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard