Who exactly, are "those people?"

The Middle Class bemoan "those people."
The Upper Middle Class bemoan "those people."
The Upper Class bemoan "those people."

If you feel the need to redefine the rights of citizenship and equal access and equal protection under the Law, knock yourself out. I then would guess the "media" (whatever the heck that is in the Internet Age) will be the least of your problems.

If you are currently making $10M/yr., and most of it is either dividends or capital gains, then nevermind. . . carry on.

 

It's one of the few things the French do that I whole-heartedly agree with.

There again, once you empower a population, they have a tendency to want to vote.

 

Well that would make a lot more sense. And I agree motivation would be a great tool to improving this country, its just hard to do when so many things are handed to people.

And I'm sorry I should have clarified those people as unemployed and collecting welfare. And I am referring to Presidential elections.

 

My first experience with welfare 'abuse' was a guy who bussed tables. I was 15 and okay with the ~$6/hr I made, he was probably 35 and making the same wage. He got a 2nd job driving a shuttle van (airport <-> hotel) but quit a month later... the extra income put him over the threshold for Medicaid and other benefits. He made the same amount of money working 25 hours bussing and collecting benefits as he did working 50-60 hours. It's arguably deplorable that someone would mooch when they have job opportunities. However, neither of his jobs were a career - they had no growth prospect. So it's totally understandable that you'd rather relax at home than work your tail off for the same net benefit. Most of the "poor" people I've met fall in the same general boat - they could find a job but it wouldn't get them any further than doing nothing does. The "service sector" jobs are mostly a joke - marginally above minimum wage pay with little to no growth prospect. $14k/yr doesn't exactly get you far in the big cities. Without addressing this, I don't see how you could ever convince people that work is always worth it, and thus reshape the mentality of the poor.

Of course, I'm the first to admit that this country has major issues with Jones' Syndrome and excessive reliance on credit.


8D, I generally agree with your points, but I have an issue with your opposition to drug testing of welfare recipients. I've been subject to random testing (by DOT) the last 4 years because I have a commercial driver's license. There's no probable cause to test me. If you want probable cause for testing welfare recipients, here it is: we (the taxpayers/government) want to ensure their investment is not going to waste.

 

My objection was with taking one person's entitlements because of the action of a family member. If a child is caught doing crack, the whole family looses assistance? I find that not only Constitutionally gray, but possibly morally wrong if it jeopardizes other family members, who may be on the up and up.

Once again, my beef wasn't with the notion of strict enforcement, but rather, the slippery slope of family enforcement.

That said, in regards to your DOT license:
1. Every license is a privelege, not a right.
2. Many, if not every, workfare job demands at least a whiz test, if not a random whiz test. If somebody wants more money, they usually have to piss in a cup at some point.

 

Welfare is a privilege, not a right.


Agree on the family aspect of it. I was more thinking along the individual / head of household aspect. If the parent is collecting welfare and doing drugs, our society would probably judge them as unfit to continue parenting.

 

Welcome to the gray area. Welfare checks, by themselves, may not be a right. Society's desire to combat poverty is a collective moral impetus, so, the outcome of that may be thrust upon a person. Or at the very least, subject to tyranny of the majority.

I read his simple proposal as one leading to both morally and Constitutionally questionable behavior.

 

I don't see it being gray at all. A taxpayer funded support network is not a Constitutional right, but something society (at least most of society) sees as beneficial. It should come with some reasonable caveats to ensure that society is getting their money's worth, within the realm of not violating those rights that ARE defined in the Constitution. And to me, that includes making sure recipients aren't using their welfare money on heroin or meth.

 

 

Thats the problem with any welfare state. When the government subsidizes something, you get more of it. We have more people in need of welfare because welfare exists. As you put it, what is the incentive? Why should someone with little skill or education work a shitty job to make X dollars to pay bills when they can get the same, or more, from the government by not working, or at least, not putting the extra effort. Thats a rhetorical question, since we already know the answer.