pErvin wrote:Forty Two wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:Indeed, if you can convince the voting public that the majority of benefit recipients are feckless freeloaders paid to be on holiday while they fritter their money away on lottery tickets, massive TVs and video games then great things can be achieved.
I don't think it has to be a majority of the recipients. A majority of people in society would not murder people, even if there was no chance they'd get caught or suffer criminal penalty. Most people don't want to kill people, and it's not because it's illegal. Yet, we have laws because there is a societal cost to the very small number of people who commit those kinds of crimes.
Similarly, even if only small percentage of benefits recipients abuse the system, it presents a similar societal cost.
Rubbish. A small number of pot smokers and even smaller number of harder drug users don't present much of a societal cost. Certainly nothing like murdering people. If you are worried about societal costs then you better get on with banning alcohol. It's societal cost is huge and dwarfs every other drug, and also murder.
I did not refer to banning anything I'm for legalizing drugs. It wasn't just pot smokers or hard drug users that I was referring to. The issue was with the misuse of welfare funds, which are intended to give people a leg up when they are in need. People who are using the money to buy beer and cigarettes, or junk food, or other non-necessaries, are abusing the system. Just because it's a small percentage does not mean that the behavior must be allowed under the system. Just set the cards up to only allow certain purchases. In today's world, that's easy.
People on the dole are no more honest than hedge fund managers, corporate CEOs, venture capitalists and the like. They're all people. So, just as we would not allow white collar fraud to go unpunished, even though only a very small percentage of money managers engage in that kind of criminal behavior, we also do not have to permit welfare misuse.
pErvin wrote:
Money is being paid out unjustifiably,
How is it unjustifiable? If these people are poor and unemployed, then it is justified.
If they're using the money for things that are not necessities of the food, clothing, shelter, heat and hot water variety, then it's unjustified. If a person is destitute, that poverty doesn't make spending money on quaaludes and hookers justified.
pErvin wrote:
and the payments represent a subsidy toward lack of participation in the economic activities in the country,
There are more job seekers than jobs available. It's
increasing economic activity, as without that welfare payment the vast majority of these people would have no money at all to spend in the economy.
That does not justify wasteful spending. It justifies payment of money to the needy for their needs. It doesn't justify what we're talking about, which is wasteful spending.
pErvin wrote:
and it also, to some people (a lot of people) represents a subsidy of inappropriate behavior.
And why should the rational amongst us worry about the backward morals of a bunch of irrational idiots?
Nobody has to worry about anyone's backward morals, including those who think being poor means it's not a waste of money to spend welfare money on booze and hookers.
pErvin wrote:
In other words, this does not have to be the false choice between side A (those who want to be generous and make sure that money is doled out without the slightest possible condition or judgment) and side B (those who only grudgingly, if at all, want to dole out funds to only the extremely needy, who are made to be embarrassed and feel guilty about it). There is a middle ground here, where there is both a recognition of the need to assist people in need and a willingness to give people a hand up, but also a recognition that like all groups of people there are elements within the group who will take advantage and be abusive of the system, and that it's necessary to accommodate both of these interests. Adopting that third, middle ground, position does not make a person disdainful of the poor, or accusatory of them in the sense of suggesting that they are a majority slothful, wasteful, group who waste the largess of others on luxuries.
It does when that person focuses on the poor and largely ignores the biggest welfare recipients and drug abusers in society - the rich and wealthy.
I'm for cracking down on them more. It's not either or.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
