The comment string over here took a twist, here is my latest.
"Please remember that I am fine with tax payers funding SNAP, TANF, WIC, Job Training, Social Services, Medicaid, Public Schools. etc as long as we hold the recipients accountable for striving to improve themselves and escape poverty. Here is an interesting site that I just found that lists many of the programs available.
Unfortunately it seems many of the folks with a more liberal perspective believe that tax payers should pay the expenses of a small percentage of our less motivated citizens and expect little in the way of improvement or effort from them. This is what I disagree with, I see it as a form of co-dependency and bigotry of low expectations.
I personally believe that every person is capable of learning knowledge, skills and making good financial decisions for themselves and their family, given the correct incentives. Whereas some folks seem to doubt their capabilities, and therefore are against work and training requirements.
Now tax payers care for the old infirm and young in the name of "humanity". However when it come to spending money on healthy adults, that should be an investment in them with clear expectations, rewards and or lack of rewards.
I often find it amusing when people say that Conservatives want to punish people for their chosen or inherited lifestyle. As if people are owed food, healthcare, housing, etc just for standing on American soil.
The reality is that all the money that is spent on healthy citizens is a gift / investment from other tax payers. And that with holding a gift is not "punishment", it is just not giving a gift / investment.
I mean if someone applies for a grant and does not receive it... Is that a punishment?"
"Please remember that I am fine with tax payers funding SNAP, TANF, WIC, Job Training, Social Services, Medicaid, Public Schools. etc as long as we hold the recipients accountable for striving to improve themselves and escape poverty. Here is an interesting site that I just found that lists many of the programs available.
Unfortunately it seems many of the folks with a more liberal perspective believe that tax payers should pay the expenses of a small percentage of our less motivated citizens and expect little in the way of improvement or effort from them. This is what I disagree with, I see it as a form of co-dependency and bigotry of low expectations.
I personally believe that every person is capable of learning knowledge, skills and making good financial decisions for themselves and their family, given the correct incentives. Whereas some folks seem to doubt their capabilities, and therefore are against work and training requirements.
Now tax payers care for the old infirm and young in the name of "humanity". However when it come to spending money on healthy adults, that should be an investment in them with clear expectations, rewards and or lack of rewards.
I often find it amusing when people say that Conservatives want to punish people for their chosen or inherited lifestyle. As if people are owed food, healthcare, housing, etc just for standing on American soil.
The reality is that all the money that is spent on healthy citizens is a gift / investment from other tax payers. And that with holding a gift is not "punishment", it is just not giving a gift / investment.
I mean if someone applies for a grant and does not receive it... Is that a punishment?"
6 comments:
here is my same comment I make every time this topic comes around and goes no where:
Most people receiving some form of govt assistance are children, elderly, disabled, or working. I believe there are few, if any, healthy, capable, non-working people collecting govt assistance.
To get working people off assistance programs there could be more in the way of job training programs to help them qualify for a higher paying job, but that will cost money.
Laurie,
You said the magic word... Children... Please remember that 40% of all children are born to single Moms. And for Black children 70% are born to single Moms.
And though things are better than back before 1996, the reality is that Mom's get a lot of the work requirements waived.
Now if you are correct that most of the benefits go to the children, elderly, disabled, or working. Why are so many Liberals freaking out over work requirements that do NOT impact those groups of people?
Hi Folks,
I am trying to drive this piece to the "MP most commented" list to get it some more visibility and discussion. Please make some comments there if possible. Thanks John
I mean if someone applies for a grant and does not receive it... Is that a punishment
My own view is that people use the concept of "punishment" far too loosely, an in a way that tries to inject a pejorative connotation into the word. Frequently, policy changes are framed in terms of punishment and less frequently reward as a way of influencing a debate while avoiding a substantive consideration of issues. For me, employing rhetorical tricks of this kind are indications of weakness on the substantive point. I see them as a form of tell.
In my view, all policy changes, in some degree or another, benefit some people and hurt others. Certainly that's the case with policy changes that become political issues. If it's the case that a policy change that a policy change that hurts people is a punishment, I guess it's ok to look at it that way, but if you do, you undermine the moral connotation of punishment. There is no longer a link between punishment and wrongdoing. Our language become less precise, and less useful, cheapened in order to gain some political advantage. So whenever you hear language used that way, a great question to ask is "What are they trying to hide?". Or in the alternative, "What is it they think you are too stupid to notice?".
--Hiram
From Merriam Webster
punishment
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
So if society says that we will invest in people who learn, work strive to improve and make responsible financial decisions... (ie reward)
If people choose to not meet these basic citizen expectations and they do not earn the investment (ie reward)... Does that mean they are being punished? Or that they just have not committed to doing the work necessary?
When a child does the work and earns an A... As compared to the child who does not do the work and earns a C... Is the second child being punished?
From MP comments
"It is so disheartening that there is any dispute... about SNAP. It appears to be a program where everybody wins !!
We are so far, far away as a society from seeing food, housing, and healthcare as fundamental rights for all citizens.
You can just imagine the battle to come over a basic minimum guaranteed income, which many of our forward thinkers argue will become absolutely necessary in future.
" Steve
"Steve,
What is your rationale for thinking that healthy capable adults have a right to food, housing, and healthcare? Even if they refuse to learn, change their beliefs / behaviors, limit their family size to what they can afford personally, contribute to the betterment of our society, etc...
To me the USA is like any other large social organization, the rights and benefits come with responsibilities and expectations.
With that in mind, if you believe that all healthy capable adults have a right to food, housing, and healthcare.... What do you see as the responsibilities and expectations of all healthy capable adults?
How do you want to hold people accountable for meeting those responsibilities and expectations?
Or do you think all healthy capable adults should get the rewards of our society even if they resist learning, working, following our laws, being responsible parents, etc?" G2A
Post a Comment