Welfare almost never "makes people lazy"

[Psychic Missile]

Why significant numbers of Americans are sufficiently stupid to vote against their own well-being is a continuing mystery to me. I think the correct explanations primarily have to do with extreme amounts of propaganda, a national media that has forgotten how to fact-check, a relatively uneducated population, racism, the cynical use of religion as a political tool, low voter turn-out, and the rigging of elections.

There are no poor conservatives. If you own a refrigerator, a microwave, a television, or a cell phone, you aren't poor. Also, the only reason a person is poor is their own moral failings, and all conservatives are good Christians.

[Carrikature]

And, yet, there's this.....

Who Turned My Blue State Red?

IT is one of the central political puzzles of our time: Parts of the country that depend on the safety-net programs supported by Democrats are increasingly voting for Republicans who favor shredding that net.

In his successful bid for the Senate in 2010, the libertarian Rand Paul railed against “intergenerational welfare” and said that “the culture of dependency on government destroys people’s spirits,” yet racked up winning margins in eastern Kentucky, a former Democratic stronghold that is heavily dependent on public benefits. Last year, Paul R. LePage, the fiercely anti-welfare Republican governor of Maine, was re-elected despite a highly erratic first term — with strong support in struggling towns where many rely on public assistance. And earlier this month, Kentucky elected as governor a conservative Republican who had vowed to largely undo the Medicaid expansion that had given the state the country’s largest decrease in the uninsured under Obamacare, with roughly one in 10 residents gaining coverage.

It’s enough to give Democrats the willies as they contemplate a map where the red keeps seeping outward, confining them to ever narrower redoubts of blue. The temptation for coastal liberals is to shake their heads over those godforsaken white-working-class provincials who are voting against their own interests.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that no one really knows why people vote the way they do, and that every possible 'be scared' phenomenon is blown out of proportion.

[Carrikature]

Carrik I do realize there are those who work there behinds off in low paying jobs and raise children and should be paid more. Low end medical care jobs are good examples of these, which pay little and have a high work demand. Others might be warehouse, farm labor, and some hazardous occupations with high turnover. I could and should exclude these when I mean "low paying, stay in welfare" I realize that these kinds of jobs see the greatest income gap and there in lies a large sign of "corporate greed" These jobs are not my intent. My intent are folks who deliberately refuse stepping stone jobs and programs to assist them in receiving higher income simply because welfare seems easier.

That's not what I was asking.

[Carrikature]

New Zealand is a colder place than most of the U. S. where living on the streets IS way of life in Los Angeles and probably southern Texas and Florida

It's not really an issue of temperature. It's a question of acceptance. Southern Texas doesn't have homeless people in anywhere near the numbers that Austin does. Living in Oregon, where it's been 40s for the last couple of weeks, there still are lots of homeless people in Portland. It is, as you say, a way of life. It's weird to me that the people I expect to be taking the best care of such people are in fact doing quite the opposite (by all appearances).

That's not to say that I think people in Texas are taking better care of the homeless. I think they don't cater to such individuals and those people move on.

[Catholicity]

Fair warning that I often sound harsh without meaning to. This is probably going to be one of those posts. Take the following with a dose of mellow.



Is there a basic standard of living that a person should expect simply for being a living human? Does a person have to earn the ability to eat or be sheltered? Is that even possible? Who determines that standard? What pushes someone into the "you don't deserve to live" category? And at the risk of sounding snarky, does it make any sense at all for a person who believes they can never earn the eternal rewards they believe they will be given to then demand that someone else earn such basic things as enough money to pay for food and shelter?




But what's the problem here? That they're just too lazy, or that hard work isn't actually enough to meet basic needs? IF they can truly be trying to make a living wage and still achieve less than what the US generally considers a minimum standard of living, the problem isn't them.

So keeping the "grain of salt in mind" KG and I have had many a discussion that the current recognition of minimum wage vs minimum standard of living has a large gap in it. There are lots of cultural standards and influences and certainly in a capitalist society ideas are going to be very different from a more socialist perspective. While there are some who have a "you don't deserve to live" perspective, and others who have a more equal oppurtunity perspective, I have a strong tendency to believe that MOST people are born with the same chance as everyone else. Along the way we make choices that influence our outcomes in life. Here I'll give you a real life example of where attitude is probably everything: A young man born very disabled was given every chance in life including the best health care, psychiatric care, therapy, occupational therapy, and as an adult was provided vocational rehabilitation, multiple chances to finish a high school diploma many work oppurtunities, driving school to learn to drive, he has one daughter whom he refuses most contact with. This person also does not work has no diploma, lives at home, accepts an SSI check (for his congenital disability) and likely will need assisted living because of his "quitting" attitude. (in other words everything he started he quit because it was "too hard") His choices influenced his poor quality of life. That can't be helped.
In another real life example a young lady made many poor choices including methamphetamine. She willingly spent some time at an oxford house, then one year later for something different, spent some time at a minimum security corrections facility. Despite some issues encountered she found her way to the salvation army shelter, and between some assistance at Catholic Charities, started up a cleaning business. 9 months later she found some good work cleaning apartments which made a huge difference for her business and was able to move out of the Shelter into some Apartments.
My point with these two individuals, both have some kind of disadvantage, both made choices. No one chose their lives for them. And I tend to think in the USA unless you are a complete invalid you have decisions to make.

[shunyadragon]

Assumes all help and giving is the same. Fails to distinguish between different types of giving and personality differences between individuals.

If this is the case please enlighten us to this distinction.

[Cow Poke]

It's not really an issue of temperature. It's a question of acceptance. Southern Texas doesn't have homeless people in anywhere near the numbers that Austin does.

You should visit Galveston.

[Mountain Man]

Congratulations, you managed to take me as far out of context as you possibly could dope.

That's par for the course for Dimbulb. Ignore those parts of an argument that he can't refute, take the rest out of context, and when necessary, put words in your opponent's mouth. It's the only way he can keep up in a debate.

[Mountain Man]

Why significant numbers of Americans are sufficiently stupid to vote against their own well-being is a continuing mystery to me. I think the correct explanations primarily have to do with extreme amounts of propaganda, a national media that has forgotten how to fact-check, a relatively uneducated population, racism, the cynical use of religion as a political tool, low voter turn-out, and the rigging of elections.

Ironically enough, those characteristics are most often associated with the Democrat party and the low-information morons who support it.

[Adam]

We see why MM remains on the "Dirty Dozen" list deservedly. In reverse order: where are charges of rigging of elections by Democrats (Repubs rigged the 2000 election, Sandra Day O'Conner ruined the world by picking George W. Bush), low voter turnout is encouraged by Republicans who know their stalwarts will show up to vote under any circumstances, so they make voting tough, Fundamentalist religion and Pro-Jewish extremism is heavily Republican, racism is so evident in Nixon's Southern Strategy that turned the South from Democrat to Republican, and it's the Republicans who won't pay for adequate education, much less into junior college where it should be free.
Wrong on all counts, MM, but that never bothers you.

[Mountain Man]

We see why MM remains on the "Dirty Dozen" list deservedly.

Oh, I didn't realize I was so honored. Thank you very much. :)

Of course you're confusing establishment Republicans (the infamous RINOs) with real Republicans who uphold and defend the conservative values established by our Founding Fathers.

[Catholicity]

There are no poor conservatives. If you own a refrigerator, a microwave, a television, or a cell phone, you aren't poor. Also, the only reason a person is poor is their own moral failings, and all conservatives are good Christians.

Wow.

[JimL]

Oh, I didn't realize I was so honored. Thank you very much. :)

Of course you're confusing establishment Republicans (the infamous RINOs) with real Republicans who uphold and defend the conservative values established by our Founding Fathers.

Yes, the founding slave holders, whose conservative values prevented all but the elite, the wealthy male property owners, from having any say or representation in their government.

[Adam]

Of course you're confusing establishment Republicans (the infamous RINOs) with real Republicans who uphold and defend the conservative values established by our Founding Fathers.

As a former John Birch Society member who voted for Goldwater in 1964, I know the difference. Yes, I had been disappointed in Ike (Eisenhower) for losing Cuba, but Herbert Matthews of the New York Times propagandized Castro into power. Lots of Communist bad guys back then.
But I have never voted for another Repub for POTUS. I usually voted FARTHER RIGHT than any of your wannabe phonies like Rush. Rush came from right here in Sacramento, where we knew he was doing it all for show business and the money and the narcotics.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, the founding slave holders, whose conservative values prevented all but the elite, the wealthy male property owners, from having any say or representation in their government.

Actually, restricting voting rights to property owners is a sound policy when you consider that it prevents those who have not meaningfully contributed to society from simply voting for "wealth redistribution". It's a policy that I wish we could return to today. I'm reminded of a neighbor of mine who rented and dutifully voted in favor of every property tax increase because it would increase her benefits without having to pay a single dime out of her own pocket while our own taxes went up.

As for slavery, well, ask yourself which party was most instrumental in abolishing slavery in America and which party fought desegration every step of the way and continues to promote racist policies like affirmative action.